11–20 of 30 posts
The links without underlines or outlines don't look like links until you hover over them. That sucks because 1. It requires you to randomly hover over things in hope of a link. 2. You can't hover on a touch screen. Repeat after me: You're a designer. You are not an artist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uggh. Token middlebrow dismissal. If that is how you feel, just browse the internet with CSS turned off or with your own style sheet overriding the site's own style sheet. If you use chrome, try this: [0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/user-stylesheet/nl...
No. Keeping links colored and underlined is a good idea. User interfaces shouldn't reinvent the wheel. They should respect standards so users don't have to relearn commands every time they switch programs. Same for websites: Keep it familiar.
Ditto for ones that involve lines flying across your link text.
The subtler effects are nice, but the delay on them can make it easy to miss that these are links if the cursor is moving fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Keeping links colored and underlined is a good idea. User interfaces shouldn't reinvent the wheel. They should respect standards so users don't have to relearn commands every time they switch programs. Same for websites: Keep it familiar.
I think it's fairly obvious that these effects aren't intended for body copy links, rather for header navigation and the like. In those cases, such as when they appear in a navigation bar at the top of the page, their utility is already obvious and there is plenty of room for differentiation.
The links without underlines or outlines don't look like links until you hover over them. That sucks because 1. It requires you to randomly hover over things in hope of a link. 2. You can't hover on a touch screen. Repeat after me: You're a designer. You are not an artist.
Ever heard of a nav menu?
Several of these are actually quite nice. Granted, they're definitely not link styles to be used "generally", in body text, etc. -- but for an appropriately image-conscious site, they could work particularly in a site header, for example. Unfortunately it's hard to comment on them individually since they don't really have "names"... but "Wafture", and "Chatoyant" (against red) are particularly nice and tasteful.
What do you mean "subtle" and "modern"? I'd go with something more like "gaudy" and "distracting". Links should be blue and underlined, and visited or hovered-over links should be purple and still underlined. (Or some other pair of colors, that makes links stand out from non-links, and visited links look "faded" compared to non-visited links.) Distracting special effects just show off you 1337 web skillz and detract…
Uggh. Token middlebrow dismissal. If that is how you feel, just browse the internet with CSS turned off or with your own style sheet overriding the site's own style sheet. If you use chrome, try this: [0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/user-stylesheet/nl...
So, that means you disagree but can't articulate why?
If that is how you feel, just browse the internet with CSS turned off
If you had ever actually tried this, you'd know it's completely bullshit advice.
or with your own style sheet overriding the site's own style sheet.
Because the proper solution to shitty website UIs is to force everyone to jump thru hoops to fix them individually, rather than to rant at the webdevs in the hops that they think about things from the users' perspective rather than just "hey, that looks cool"?
It should be immediately apparent that links are links.
It is generally helpful if visited and non-visited links are different. For some things (say, a list of product categories) this is less important.
Fancy hover effects are annoying. They're slow, if the effect looks like replacement I need to re-read the caption to see that it's still the same, the eye-catchingness makes it impossible to look at something next to it until the animation finishes (this is especially bad for any effects set for when the hover ends).