Atracting attention to a link

[dorayme]

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.

It is not the words that I worry about but the extreme thought
behind it. I have agreed to the general principle. I just worry
about extreme adherence to an ideal that is prone to ignore
practical situations.

I think we would need specific examples to agree or disagree with each
other since we're both talking generally.

Yes, I agree. This is a pic of one of about 4 examples I have...

http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/pics/mentioningTheMechani
csBigTime.png


Another one mentions the colours seen and for users to expect
that there be some variations when seeing the actual products in
shops (a commercial site involving many fabrics and materials)
due to the variations in browsers and settings etc..., another is
an academic site allowing access to pdf files with some stuff
about right clicking.

I sometimes make available things for various purposes in a
zipped format and sometimes sin by making a few mechanical
remarks... but this usually for a restricted audience.

But by and large, best to stay clear of this sort of thing. Like
in a good work of art, it is better to just show and perform than
to explain...

This is almost a full and frank confession.

 

[usenet+2004]

dorayme:

It is not the words that I worry about but the extreme thought
behind it. I have agreed to the general principle. I just worry
about extreme adherence to an ideal that is prone to ignore
practical situations.

Extremism is a worry!

[...]

http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/pics/mentioningTheMechani
csBigTime.png

How about 'Publications' as the page heading and 'Brochures, Flyers,
Pamphlets' as the second subheading? 'Downloadable documents' I find
obvious and vague: obvious because anything available on the web is by
that very fact downloadable, and vague because 'document' is a term
used for all sorts of resources, e.g., PDF docs, HTML docs, RTF docs.
'Publications' covers both subheadings.

I'd omit the first sentence under the main heading and let the page
speak for itself. I would leave a note that the resources are all PDFs
if that is the only format they are in (the URL suffixes would be
<.pdf>).* I'd omit the last two sentences of the first paragraph. The
last one is dubious because there is nothing preventing a browser from
presenting PDFs.

If you changed the second subheading, the text under each subheading
would barely expand on its heading. I'd either elaborate if you have
something more to say, or remove them. Again, the lists of
publications pretty much speak for themselves.

The text under 'How to access these documents' reads like it is trying
to accommodate everyone. As a result, it contains little specific
instruction. I would remove the entire section or at least drastically
cut it down. For example, in the first paragraph of the page you
mention PDFs. You could make 'PDF' a link to a page about PDFs,
rendering the need to explain how to read PDFs unnecessary.


* Ideally, I would have different formats, allowing content negotiation
to serve the resource in the most preferred format.

 

[David Segall]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:
I'm glad you started a new thread I was about to do so myself. For
those that did not see the previous one the arguments were based on
the literal interpretation of an old Style Guide, specifically this

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.

Let me provide a specific and common example. "Click on the picture to
see an enlarged image" such as <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.
Compare that with this page from another proponent of "No Mechanics"
<http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/ragbag.html>. There is only a
very subtle indication that the picture is a link but if you move your
mouse over it you discover that it is. However, you still don't know
if clicking on it will provide a PDF on how Glasgow University
welcomes new students or an enlarged image.

The Style Guide was clearly intended to promote a standard way of
writing hypertext so that users would have a common view of links and
did not need an explanation. Any other conventions or standards should
be welcomed and adhered to but surely it is preferable if the user is
told what to expect rather than be forced to experiment.

P.S. Thanks to those who helped with
<http://shirley.profectus.com.au>. As you can see I adopted a
combination of your suggestions.

 

[usenet+2004]

David Segall:

Let me provide a specific and common example. "Click on the picture to
see an enlarged image" such as <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.

'Click' assumes both that the user's primary way of following a link is
by pressing a button and that clicking can only perform a retrieval.
Neither assumption always stands on the WWW. There are other ways of
following a link, e.g, by voice activation, by keyboard input, by
keypad input, by pointing with a pen, and there are other actions that
can be performed by clicking.

Compare that with this page from another proponent of "No Mechanics"
<http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/ragbag.html>. There is only a
very subtle indication that the picture is a link but if you move your
mouse over it you discover that it is. However, you still don't know
if clicking on it will provide a PDF on how Glasgow University
welcomes new students or an enlarged image.

I can see immediately that it is a link by its blue border. There is a
fundamental difference, though, between this ornamental image, if the
author would permit me that, and your gallery of pictures. Your
gallery is designed for people to view the larger pictures, isn't it?,
whereas it is really neither here nor there if a user misses that the
ornamental image is a link to a larger version.

The Style Guide was clearly intended to promote a standard way of
writing hypertext so that users would have a common view of links and
did not need an explanation. Any other conventions or standards should
be welcomed and adhered to but surely it is preferable if the user is
told what to expect rather than be forced to experiment.

I would think it is still more preferable that the user knows what's
going to happen without being told and without having to experiment.

 

[dorayme]

How about 'Publications' as the page heading and 'Brochures, Flyers,
Pamphlets' as the second subheading? 'Downloadable documents' I find
obvious and vague: obvious because anything available on the web is by
that very fact downloadable, and vague because 'document' is a term
used for all sorts of resources, e.g., PDF docs, HTML docs, RTF docs.
'Publications' covers both subheadings.

I did have it as Publications and changed it to cover other
things and possible future things, the nature of which I not know
now. Some things are not publications. This page (which is not
yet up, it is goes up officially in October I think) has but one
link to it from elsewhere, not part of any navigation and will be
used by organizations to refer people to it verbally or
otherwise. What you and I perceive is not always what users
perceive. I asked various people to try various things re this
page and they found this one the easiest to use without false
steps. But no doubt I will rearrange things to be less
objectionable to the principle of not mentioning the mechanics

I'd omit the first sentence under the main heading and let the page
speak for itself. I would leave a note that the resources are all PDFs
if that is the only format they are in (the URL suffixes would be
<.pdf>).*

Well, ideally, why even a note on this? After you have done with
the page, we will end up with a page that I initially drafted
that was not as helpful as this "flawed page" That's what the
worry is, John.

* Ideally, I would have different formats, allowing content negotiation
to serve the resource in the most preferred format.
Ideally...


I'd omit the last two sentences of the first paragraph. The
last one is dubious because there is nothing preventing a browser from
presenting PDFs.

The last one is true, rather than dubious. It is to head off any
idea that these docs are part of the normally viewable or
accessible website.

The text under 'How to access these documents' reads like it is trying
to accommodate everyone.

I am doing the best I can!

As a result, it contains little specific
instruction.

How do you get more specific than right click and save... by even
more words... even I have limits!

I would remove the entire section or at least drastically
cut it down. For example, in the first paragraph of the page you
mention PDFs. You could make 'PDF' a link to a page about PDFs,
rendering the need to explain how to read PDFs unnecessary.

I don't know about this? This is really being a slave to a
principle without practical sense. I would rather say a few
things occasionally to save people chasing off elsewhere.

But thank you for your remarks. The fact is that when getting
into this whole business one is spending lots of time rearranging
things, trying this and that, and time is not always on the side
of principle. I am not saying it is a bad principle and I think I
gave you one of the very few examples, the worst, in my zoo. Here
is another, done in response to various queries, the queries said
to be satisfied now (this one has been operating for ages live):

http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/pics/MentioningMechanics2
..png

 

[usenet+2004]

dorayme:

[[email protected]]:

I'd omit the first sentence under the main heading and let the page
speak for itself. I would leave a note that the resources are all PDFs
if that is the only format they are in (the URL suffixes would be
<.pdf>).*

Well, ideally, why even a note on this?

Ideally, as I meant to say in the footnote, there would be no need.
Ideally, I think, you would have different formats of the same resource
all served under the same URL, content negotiation picking the one most
preferred. But you serve only PDFs, so even if it was just a note in
the title attribute, I think a note *somewhere* would be helpful. (I
said 'note', mind, not an explanation of how to read PDFs in one or
more systems.)

After you have done with the page, we will end up with a
page that I initially drafted that was not as helpful as this
"flawed page" That's what the worry is, John.

Not Mentioning The Mechanics is a matter of style. Nothing wrong
either way. If you feel you need to, go ahead.

The last one is true, rather than dubious. It is to head off any
idea that these docs are part of the normally viewable or
accessible website.

Here we see again that an author's expectiations or intentions don't
necessarily coincide with those of the user. PDFs are perfectly
accessible with a web browser. Not all browsers, maybe, but that's up
to the user not the author to decide.

Mentioning that the documents are PDFs, and linking to a page about
PDFs, is sufficient in my book.

How do you get more specific than right click and save... by even
more words... even I have limits!

That is specific, yes, but what about people who don't or can't 'right
click and save'? (You are also entering the territory of guessing the
wording on context menus, but I see you hedge by saying 'like "save"'.)

I don't know about this? This is really being a slave to a
principle without practical sense. I would rather say a few
things occasionally to save people chasing off elsewhere.

I think people who don't know about PDFs and are interested in finding
out can learn more from a page *about* PDFs than from a sidenote on a
page about something else entirely, and those who do know, or think
they know, about PDFs can ignore the link. By linking, all the text on
the page remains relevant to everyone.

[...]

http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/pics/MentioningMechanics2
.png

Again, I'd remove the section about PDFs and link to a page about them.

I'd also get rid of 'Download' in 'Download latest newsletter'.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme:

[[email protected]]:

....

PDFs are perfectly
accessible with a web browser.

If this were true I would not have had the problem and response I
made.

Mentioning that the documents are PDFs, and linking to a page about
PDFs, is sufficient in my book.

As I said, this is arguably an irritant to many people who are
used to chasing rabbits and getting lost... a few words now and
then is not such a bad thing, saves them the trouble. As long as
the instructions are brief, and helpful to many people and not
confusing to others. I am not claiming my few efforts in this
regard on about 3 or 4 pages out of a great many are perfect!

I think people who don't know about PDFs and are interested in finding
out can learn more from a page *about* PDFs than from a sidenote on a
page about something else entirely, and those who do know, or think
they know, about PDFs can ignore the link. By linking, all the text on
the page remains relevant to everyone.

Believe me, few of the people likely to use the pages concerned
are "interested" in PDFs!

Anyway, thank you for your remarks. It will likely have the
effect of making mine briefer, perhaps even more accurate. But I
really don't fancy leaving my the poor users to their own
devices, to links for further research - I have seen them scream
too often about PDFs.

I will reduce the level of the sin to what I think might just let
me through the Gates of St Peter's

 

[David Segall]

David Segall:


'Click' assumes both that the user's primary way of following a link is
by pressing a button and that clicking can only perform a retrieval.
Neither assumption always stands on the WWW. There are other ways of
following a link, e.g, by voice activation, by keyboard input, by
keypad input, by pointing with a pen, and there are other actions that
can be performed by clicking.

I don't think I need to explain all that Users know what click
means even if they use some other method to achieve it. The fact that
there are other actions that can be achieved by clicking is why I
think that my explanation is required.

I can see immediately that it is a link by its blue border. There is a
fundamental difference, though, between this ornamental image, if the
author would permit me that, and your gallery of pictures. Your
gallery is designed for people to view the larger pictures, isn't it?,

Agreed, that is why I added the "mechanics"

whereas it is really neither here nor there if a user misses that the
ornamental image is a link to a larger version.

Perhaps, but the author thought some of his visitors would enjoy the
larger image. I did. I think telling them that it is available would
be helpful and, in any case, I think telling them what to expect if
they do follow the link is highly desirable.

I would think it is still more preferable that the user knows what's
going to happen without being told and without having to experiment.

Of course. And if the users and authors were restricted to the era
when the style guide was written that aim might be realized. We would
not have graphic artists as web page authors who think coloured
borders look geeky and we would not have users who are more accustomed
to Flash sites than standard ones.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

David Segall:

I didn't respond directly to that challenge because, after all, the
key question is not my intentions, but the effect achieved on the
users. Thanks for acting as a potential user ;-)

I can see immediately that it is a link by its blue border. There is a
fundamental difference, though, between this ornamental image, if the
author would permit me that, and your gallery of pictures.

Indeed. You characterise this picture well as an "ornamental image".
You'll notice that I set alt="" in accordance with that principle.
Text-mode readers will miss the joke, but it's a poor joke anyway, I
don't think they're missing anything substantive. YMMV.

Your gallery is designed for people to view the larger pictures,
isn't it?, whereas it is really neither here nor there if a user
misses that the ornamental image is a link to a larger version.

That's my "take" on the matter too. Any extra woffle about the
mechanics of the image would really distract from the primary topic of
the page, as I see it.

best regards

 

[usenet+2004]

dorayme:

[[email protected]]:

PDFs are perfectly accessible with a web browser.

If this were true I would not have had the problem and response I
made.

What I had in mind was that you can read PDFs directly, without having
to launch a helper, in a browser that has a PDF plugin. You then, in
musical terms, segue from webpage to PDF.

I wish you every success with your new pages!

 

[usenet+2004]

dorayme:

[[email protected] wrote]:

PDFs are perfectly accessible with a web browser.

If this were true I would not have had the problem and response I
made.

What I had in mind was that you can read PDFs directly, without
launching a helper, in a browser that has a PDF plugin. You then, in
musical terms, segue from webpage to PDF.

All the best with your new pages!

 

[usenet+2004]

David Segall:

[[email protected]]:

Users know what click means even if they use some other method to
achieve it.

'Click on ... to see', assuming you mean 'to depress and release a
mouse button rapidly', is presumptuous. But you appear to be
suggesting that 'click', if not in the process of a semantic shift, is
an acceptable substitute for a more general term. The synecdochic
click.

How about a more general term then? 'Activate'. Or even better,
'follow'. 'Follow' both reinforces the idea that '[a] link is a
connection from one Web resource to another' and has the advantage that
it singles out the action of retrieval. There, killed two birds with
one stone. Mind you, these are terms for concepts that I wouldn't
recommend mentioning on webpages!

The fact that there are other actions that can be achieved by clicking
is why I think that my explanation is required.

Then you realise that your "explanation" can be wrong.

[...]

Of course. And if the users and authors were restricted to the era
when the style guide was written that aim might be realized. We would
not have graphic artists as web page authors who think coloured
borders look geeky and we would not have users who are more accustomed
to Flash sites than standard ones.

I think you would have to provide examples for me to take that as
anything but a strawman. You don't run afoul of the principle Don't
Mention The Mechanics just by including Flash or having a fancy design.
A rough test for this principle is to print your page and read it.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme:

[[email protected]]:

PDFs are perfectly accessible with a web browser.

If this were true I would not have had the problem and response I
made.

What I had in mind was that you can read PDFs directly, without having
to launch a helper, in a browser that has a PDF plugin. You then, in
musical terms, segue from webpage to PDF.

That is the source of the problem from the start. I cannot go
into the details but roughly I had your heart's desire on the
page, I was told some people were puzzled the PDFs did not just
appear! So I put in a few words and the puzzles stopped. I might
look into it further when I have time. Thank you for your
comments.

I wish you every success with your new pages!

Thanks. I am hoping the site that will come on in October (I
think) will go ok as it is my first that is built on what I have
learnt here, contains no tables, uses floats and so on. I am sure
it can be greatly improved. I don't think any of the other pages
contain "mechanical" instructions!

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Thanks. I am hoping the site that will come on in October (I
think) will go ok as it is my first that is built on what I have
learnt here, contains no tables, uses floats and so on. I am sure
it can be greatly improved. I don't think any of the other pages
contain "mechanical" instructions!

Your first website, dorayme
or John´s first website?

 

[dorayme]

Your first website, dorayme
or John´s first website?

Neither