Atracting attention to a link

D

David Segall

I recently had a 100% failure rate with the two visitors who wanted to
look at some notes that were linked to a web page but did not know how
to do it. The link says Click _here_. It is followed by the usual
advice on getting the Adobe Acrobat Reader and both did that although
they probably already had it. If you want to see the actual page the
relevant bit is at the bottom of <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.

Should I have used more contrast for the word "here" and/or made the
link text longer? Should I have created a button for the link and, if
so, would "here" be a sufficient label for the button? Other ideas?
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

David said:
I recently had a 100% failure rate with the two visitors who wanted to
look at some notes that were linked to a web page but did not know how
to do it. The link says Click _here_. It is followed by the usual
advice on getting the Adobe Acrobat Reader and both did that although
they probably already had it. If you want to see the actual page the
relevant bit is at the bottom of <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.

Should I have used more contrast for the word "here" and/or made the
link text longer? Should I have created a button for the link and, if
so, would "here" be a sufficient label for the button? Other ideas?

Contrast would go along way. Using 'here' for the link is rather bad
practice, far better to put a real description withing the link text:


<a href="http://profectus.com.au/text/PortraitNotes.pdf">Shirley's
notes</a> are mainly reminiscences about the Segall family (PDF 342KB).
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

David said:
I recently had a 100% failure rate with the two visitors who wanted to
look at some notes that were linked to a web page but did not know
how to do it. The link says Click _here_. It is followed by the usual
advice on getting the Adobe Acrobat Reader and both did that although
they probably already had it. If you want to see the actual page the
relevant bit is at the bottom of <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.

Should I have used more contrast for the word "here" and/or made the
link text longer? Should I have created a button for the link and, if
so, would "here" be a sufficient label for the button? Other ideas?

"Click here" or "here" is never a good text for a link. Google for
numerous past references.

I would change it from:
You can view the notes <a href="text/PortraitNotes.pdf"> here</a>.
to:
<a href="text/PortraitNotes.pdf">View the notes</a>.

and I would change the hover colour to perhaps a pale yellow, rather
than the dull darker gray on medium gray. The link underline is also
quite faint; sharpen that up as well.

Aside: on pages of mine where PDF downloads are available, I include
the usual Adobe Reader link and instructions, but also include same for
alternative readers, usually FoxItReader, and explain that it is much
more lightweight and less intrusive than Adobe.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Jonathan said:
Contrast would go along way. Using 'here' for the link is rather bad
practice, far better to put a real description withing the link text:


<a href="http://profectus.com.au/text/PortraitNotes.pdf">Shirley's
notes</a> are mainly reminiscences about the Segall family (PDF 342KB).

It also would not hurt to repeat the link above in the bio where your
mention Shirley's notes.
 
R

richard

David Segall said:
I recently had a 100% failure rate with the two visitors who wanted to
look at some notes that were linked to a web page but did not know how
to do it. The link says Click _here_. It is followed by the usual
advice on getting the Adobe Acrobat Reader and both did that although
they probably already had it. If you want to see the actual page the
relevant bit is at the bottom of <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.

Should I have used more contrast for the word "here" and/or made the
link text longer? Should I have created a button for the link and, if
so, would "here" be a sufficient label for the button? Other ideas?

You could also embed the "Adobe reader" logo into the page.
Using the image as a link.
"if you don't have the reader, you can click the logo and download it".
 
D

dorayme

What others have said. Black text on such a dark grey makes folk
work too hard. About the link, when I provide PDF files, I always
say something about right clicking or control clicking and
downloading so that people do not have to try to open it in a
browser that is not suitably equipped. The link to the Reader is
not enough.
 
J

Jim Higson

richard said:
You could also embed the "Adobe reader" logo into the page.
Using the image as a link.
"if you don't have the reader, you can click the logo and download it".

I always find "you must get Adobe Acrobat" text very annoying.

There is PDF reading software other than Acrobat. It is like saying "you
must use internet explorer" in order to browse the web.

PDF links? I just middle-click them and read the PDF in a browser tab. Very
easy.
 
D

David Segall

Jim Higson said:
I always find "you must get Adobe Acrobat" text very annoying.

There is PDF reading software other than Acrobat. It is like saying "you
must use internet explorer" in order to browse the web.
I don't think they are comparable. The standard for web pages is
published by a consortium not associated with any one browser. The PDF
standard was developed and published by Adobe. It is likely that the
Acrobat reader will cope best with the latest PDF version and, in any
case, Adobe deserve the credit of a link even if you choose a
different reader. If it was not for PDF the web would be full
Microsoft Word documents and there is no published standard for them.
PDF links? I just middle-click them and read the PDF in a browser tab. Very
easy.
Since you did not specify an alternative I assume that means you do
use Acrobat.
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

PDF links? I just middle-click them and read the PDF in a browser
tab. Very easy.

Well, at least you know how to use your own browser! But some authors
make the mistake of assuming that all browsers are configured to work
the same as their own, so they offer some wholly misleading
instructions on what the user should do. So some naive users end up
in even more confusion than if there were no instructions on the page,
poor things.

One of the original ideas of the web, I think it's fair to say[1], was
that straightforward things would pretty much work intuitively: after
5-10 minutes familiarisation with a new browser, no further
instructions would be needed (of course, users who wanted to do more
complicated things would expect to have to learn how, but that would
be a function of their browser, *not* normally of the page that
they're reading[2]).

So, IMHO, if authors think that their web page needs a whole swath of
instructions on how to use it, then they're probably doing something
wrong. I'd recommend taking a step back and trying to understand why
it's not working intuitively, as it's meant to.

(It goes without saying that variations on "click here" are ipso facto
the mark of an inept web author, n'est-ce pas?)

regards

[1] To save repeating myself, I offer you this item, written long ago
and referring to some of TimBL's early materials on authoring style:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/alt/alt-more.html#style

[2] ok, there will be special cases where this doesn't apply.
Puzzles, maybe, for example...
 
D

David Segall

Alan J. Flavell said:
PDF links? I just middle-click them and read the PDF in a browser
tab. Very easy.

Well, at least you know how to use your own browser! But some authors
make the mistake of assuming that all browsers are configured to work
the same as their own, so they offer some wholly misleading
instructions on what the user should do. So some naive users end up
in even more confusion than if there were no instructions on the page,
poor things.

One of the original ideas of the web, I think it's fair to say[1], was
that straightforward things would pretty much work intuitively: after
5-10 minutes familiarisation with a new browser, no further
instructions would be needed (of course, users who wanted to do more
complicated things would expect to have to learn how, but that would
be a function of their browser, *not* normally of the page that
they're reading[2]).

So, IMHO, if authors think that their web page needs a whole swath of
instructions on how to use it, then they're probably doing something
wrong. I'd recommend taking a step back and trying to understand why
it's not working intuitively, as it's meant to.

(It goes without saying that variations on "click here" are ipso facto
the mark of an inept web author, n'est-ce pas?)

regards

[1] To save repeating myself, I offer you this item, written long ago
and referring to some of TimBL's early materials on authoring style:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/alt/alt-more.html#style

[2] ok, there will be special cases where this doesn't apply.
Puzzles, maybe, for example...
 
D

David Segall

Ignore the previous post. It shows that I don't know how to use my own
news reader.
(It goes without saying that variations on "click here" are ipso facto
the mark of an inept web author, n'est-ce pas?)

regards

[1] To save repeating myself, I offer you this item, written long ago
and referring to some of TimBL's early materials on authoring style:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/alt/alt-more.html#style
I think I understood the English, Latin and French but I missed the
pointer to the correct style for "Click here". In the non-web world
"Click here" is common with buttons labeled "Push", "Press" etc. I was
seeking, and I obtained, some useful advice but I resent the
appellation of an "inept web author" from someone who offers dozens of
irrelevant web pages in response to a specific question.
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

I think I understood the English, Latin and French but I missed the
pointer to the correct style for "Click here".

You could try the W3C's own tips on the topic:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
I resent the appellation of an "inept web author" from someone who
offers dozens of irrelevant web pages in response to a specific
question.

Welcome to usenet. Contributors offer what seems to them to be
relevant to the topic - you are free to take or leave the advice you
are offered. Do you often experience such feelings of resentment?

bye
 
A

Andy Dingley

Alan said:
One of the original ideas of the web, I think it's fair to say[1],

Anyone using a phrase like "the original ideas of the web" will find a
fascinating read in Hakon Lie's PhD thesis (URL recently posted).
There's some fascinating stuff in there as a historical survey of
contemporary ideas in document management and presentation, in the era
of the early web.
 
D

David Segall

Alan J. Flavell said:
You could try the W3C's own tips on the topic:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere


Welcome to usenet. Contributors offer what seems to them to be
relevant to the topic - you are free to take or leave the advice you
are offered. Do you often experience such feelings of resentment?
I am coping with my feelings and sometimes they provoke a helpful
response from truly sympathetic contributors. Thanks for the W3C link.
 
D

dorayme

"Alan J. Flavell said:
One of the original ideas of the web, I think it's fair to say[1], was
that straightforward things would pretty much work intuitively: after
5-10 minutes familiarisation with a new browser, no further
instructions would be needed (of course, users who wanted to do more
complicated things would expect to have to learn how, but that would
be a function of their browser, *not* normally of the page that
they're reading[2]).

So, IMHO, if authors think that their web page needs a whole swath of
instructions on how to use it, then they're probably doing something
wrong. I'd recommend taking a step back and trying to understand why
it's not working intuitively, as it's meant to.

There are practical things that come up where one feels obliged
to say something about the mechanics now and then. I agree with
what you say as an ideal to be followed where possible. Said this
before (I think?), I have told people, among other things, to
right or control click to download PDF files for printing and/or
viewing on a couple of sites. On one site, it is a whole lot of
big files that the organization wish to make available to people
for printing and/or screen viewing. Files that are unlikely to be
widely enough wanted to justify the expense of delving into them
and making good HTML web pages on the material. In one case I
made a special HTML page for all these files to go in a list. I
felt obliged to say things, it is just a fact that a little
earthy help is now and then called for...

Think of the old silent movies, they mostly "spoke for
themselves"... but many less educated people found some of the
written words helpful. At the time, it might have been said that
they would have been better works without these explanations,
from the aethetic point of view - more is less and all that. But
these are lofty notions if carried to extremes. Now, of course,
these written words are part of the charming appeal of the silent
movies.
 
U

usenet+2004

Beauregard T. Shagnasty:

[ said:
I would change it from:
You can view the notes <a href="text/PortraitNotes.pdf"> here</a>.
to:
<a href="text/PortraitNotes.pdf">View the notes</a>.

Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire! You have gone from
'here', a word that merely fails to describe the resource, to 'View the
notes', a phrase that (1) dictates *how* the user should experience the
resource, or at least reveals how the author expects the user to
experience it, and (2) presumes that the action performed on the link
is a retrieval. Link text, I think, should say what the resource is,
in this case Shirley Bourne's notes.

Ideally, without recasting the paragraph, I would have the markup:

<P>Sometime, fairly recently, Shirley decided to document her
portraits. <A href="<URI>" title="Shirley Bourne's notes on her
portraits">The notes</A> are mainly reminiscences about the Segall
family.</P>

The link destination could then be an abstract resource, not a
particular representation. In other words, you could offer a PDF
version and an HTML version, allowing the browser's Accept header to
determine in the background which version the server should respond
with. Alternatively, you could have a normal link (to the abstract
resource) and a second link to a PDF version. The second link's URL
Aside: on pages of mine where PDF downloads are available, I include
the usual Adobe Reader link and instructions, but also include same for
alternative readers, usually FoxItReader, and explain that it is much
more lightweight and less intrusive than Adobe.

These instructions violate the principle Don't Mention The Mechanics.
(Basil Fawlty's 'I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it'
won't cut it on the WWW.) I do anticipate the counter argument that
such instructions are acceptable because they are so common that users
are by now familiar with them, but I regard that argument as weak since
what is familiar is not necessarily what is best. After all, there are
alternative ways of presenting the same information that do not involve
mentioning the mechanics.
 
D

dorayme

These instructions violate the principle Don't Mention The Mechanics.
(Basil Fawlty's 'I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it'
won't cut it on the WWW.)

They cut it all the time. Many people find such things useful.
One should try to avoid it but not treat the principle as some
sort of heaven sent tablet.
After all, there are
alternative ways of presenting the same information that do not involve
mentioning the mechanics.

I wish I could be as cheerfully confident as you.
 
U

usenet+2004

dorayme:

[PDF-reader link and instructions]
Many people find such things useful. One should try to avoid it but
not treat the principle as some sort of heaven sent tablet.

One reason to follow the principle in general is that any mention of
the mechanics detracts from the content proper. Instructions take up
space. The canonical URL:

http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/NoMechanics.html

Another reason to follow the principle in this case is the difficulty
of writing the instructions. Since all but the most basic instructions
would necessarily be system-dependent, one set of instructions would
not be sufficient. They would also be incomplete, because to cover all
platforms, all browsers, and all users is not feasible. Brief
instructions are probably useless: those who know what to do don't
need any instruction and those who don't know what to do require fairly
detailed instruction, instruction they can find either in the manual
for their own system or in one of the webpages *about* PDF reading on
the WWW.
 
D

dorayme

dorayme:

[PDF-reader link and instructions]
Many people find such things useful. One should try to avoid it but
not treat the principle as some sort of heaven sent tablet.

One reason to follow the principle in general is that any mention of
the mechanics detracts from the content proper.

There are many reasons to avoid it, I agree. But this sort of
reasoning worries me. "any mention..." sounds to me to be weak.
To go on and on about it, yes. To not try to avoid the need, yes.
But now and then one gets caught. I imagine it helps people that
I very very occasionally "say things about the mechanics". In one
case I mention that a following list of files are not intended to
be viewed necessarily on screen but downloaded for printing, but
that if viewing is wanted and simple clicking or double clicking
is not succesful, to try to right or control click and then save
etc.

Yes, I have thought to make the headings convey the message
"Publications for printing, not viewing" and other strategies.
But in the end in a practical situation for which a client is
paying good money, I want to make sure he is happy, his website
users have success. And I can't be running to others all the time
if I cannot see a time efficient "good design" solution. And to
be fair, it may be that you are simply wrong and no one, however
good, can do away with such help by clever design. I am not
disagreeing with your sentiment here, just any extreme form of
it.
Another reason to follow the principle in this case is the difficulty
of writing the instructions.
Since all but the most basic instructions
would necessarily be system-dependent, one set of instructions would
not be sufficient. They would also be incomplete, because to cover all
platforms, all browsers, and all users is not feasible. Brief
instructions are probably useless: those who know what to do don't
need any instruction and those who don't know what to do require fairly
detailed instruction, instruction they can find either in the manual
for their own system or in one of the webpages *about* PDF reading on
the WWW.

I think this reasoning should not stop website makers from the
occasional tactical intervention. Most people are on WinIE, a few
on Mac. It is not difficult to say a few words and if it helps a
whole bunch of people...
 
U

usenet+2004

dorayme:

[re Mentioning The Mechanics]
There are many reasons to avoid it, I agree. But this sort of
reasoning worries me. "any mention..." sounds to me to be weak.

What if it was worded more generally:

Anything unrelated to the real content distracts
the user from the real content.
To go on and on about it, yes. To not try to avoid the need, yes.
But now and then one gets caught. I imagine it helps people that
I very very occasionally "say things about the mechanics".

I think I would need examples to agree or disagree with that.
In one case I mention that a following list of files are not intended
to be viewed necessarily on screen but downloaded for printing,
but that if viewing is wanted and simple clicking or double
clicking is not succesful, to try to right or control click and then
save etc.

Remembering this is the WWW, I don't think users have to have any
conception of files, of downloading, of screens, of (double, right, or
control) clicking, of printing. 'Viewing' is too restrictive. And
there seems to be an underlying assumption that retrieval is the only
action performed on URLs. These are all system- and user-specific
details that I would try to avoid mentioning.
Yes, I have thought to make the headings convey the message
"Publications for printing, not viewing" and other strategies.

That's still mentioning the mechanics.
But in the end in a practical situation for which a client is
paying good money, I want to make sure he is happy, his website
users have success. And I can't be running to others all the time
if I cannot see a time efficient "good design" solution. And to
be fair, it may be that you are simply wrong and no one, however
good, can do away with such help by clever design. I am not
disagreeing with your sentiment here, just any extreme form of
it.

I think we would need specific examples to agree or disagree with each
other since we're both talking generally.
I think this reasoning should not stop website makers from the
occasional tactical intervention.

It describes the difficulty of writing instructions for everyone or
anyone.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top