Difference between revisions of "Talk:To Blue or Not to Blue:"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(disagree) |
JohnCooley (talk | contribs) (Examples of professional sites using blue & underline convention) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Jeff | Jeff | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Would you consider Google and Amazon professional web sites? If yes I'd say it's been a few seconds since visiting one. Of course Google and Amazon are not trying to invite me into a spiritual community, they have other purposes. But still I wonder if you would look at a site that did have blue & underline for hyperlinks and consider it "un-professional" thus have self fulfilling criteria for professional web sites. [[User:JohnCooley|JohnCooley]] 08:55, 11 Nov 2005 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:55, 11 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
- Would you consider Google and Amazon professional web sites? If yes I'd say it's been a few seconds since visiting one. Of course Google and Amazon are not trying to invite me into a spiritual community, they have other purposes. But still I wonder if you would look at a site that did have blue & underline for hyperlinks and consider it "un-professional" thus have self fulfilling criteria for professional web sites. JohnCooley 08:55, 11 Nov 2005 (CST)