Difference between revisions of "Talk:To Blue or Not to Blue:"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(disagree) |
(disagree) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Well I agree that using blue text other than for links is a big no-no but I think the days when visitors expected links to be blue and underlined are well gone. If anything it's indicative that no-one has cared for the site since IE3 days - think back when did you last visit a professional looking site that had underlined blue hyperlinks? | Well I agree that using blue text other than for links is a big no-no but I think the days when visitors expected links to be blue and underlined are well gone. If anything it's indicative that no-one has cared for the site since IE3 days - think back when did you last visit a professional looking site that had underlined blue hyperlinks? | ||
| − | There are many other ways that hyperlinks can be | + | There are many other ways that hyperlinks can be made easily identifiable: the only use of a different strongly contrasting colour; using mouseovers such as the title tag so "click here for the map" appears; etc etc |
Jeff | Jeff | ||
Revision as of 22:43, 10 November 2005
Well I agree that using blue text other than for links is a big no-no but I think the days when visitors expected links to be blue and underlined are well gone. If anything it's indicative that no-one has cared for the site since IE3 days - think back when did you last visit a professional looking site that had underlined blue hyperlinks? There are many other ways that hyperlinks can be made easily identifiable: the only use of a different strongly contrasting colour; using mouseovers such as the title tag so "click here for the map" appears; etc etc
Jeff