How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a live link?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by johnsonholding@yahoo.com, Mar 26, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I have an image I want to make a link, but I found out that once I do
    that, it creates a small border around it - can I get rid of it so it
    isn't there? I don't want the 1 pixel border at all. Thanks
    , Mar 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:

    > I have an image I want to make a link, but I found out that once I do
    > that, it creates a small border around it - can I get rid of it so it
    > isn't there?


    With the CSS border property (although it is a strong visual indicator that
    the image is a link, so removing it might not be a good idea)

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Mar 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    in the code for the image source add border="0"

    <img src="whatever.jpg" border="0" />
    , Mar 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Re: How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a livelink?

    wrote:
    > in the code for the image source add border="0"
    >
    > <img src="whatever.jpg" border="0" />
    >

    Better in CSS on have to do it once

    A IMG { border: 0; }

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, quothed:

    > in the code for the image source add border="0"
    >
    > <img src="whatever.jpg" border="0" />


    Sucko sucko sucko! That line of markup is crap. Not only has "border"
    been deprecated which means it should not be used under the latest
    standards but there is no "alt" attribute, either.

    When's the last time _you_ looked at the specs?

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Mar 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    So what do you purpose? I tried the border=0 and it worked fine for
    me, but if there is a better way, please let me know. AND , I don't
    know anything about CSS.
    , Mar 26, 2006
    #6
  7. wrote:

    > So what do you purpose?


    Are you responding to something?
    http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

    > I tried the border=0 and it worked fine for me, but if there is a better
    > way, please let me know. AND , I don't know anything about CSS.


    First - learn HTML 4.01. It was published almost a decade ago and made the
    alt attribute on images mandatory. (Focus on those attributes and elements
    in the Strict DTD).

    Second - learn CSS 2. It came out a couple of years later and replaces the
    presentational aspects of HTML (making HTML much more manageable, reducing
    bandwidth needed, and discouraging the abuse of semantic markup (such as
    blockquote and table) for the presentational effects it gives in some
    common browsers instead of for its meaning).

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Mar 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, quothed:

    > So what do you purpose? I tried the border=0 and it worked fine for
    > me, but if there is a better way, please let me know. AND , I don't
    > know anything about CSS.


    You do need to learn at least some css; there's no way around it in
    today's html. A quick though non-optimal fix for the image thing is:

    <img style="border:0;" src="jugs.jpg" alt="Two earthy containers">

    Normal css uses a stylesheet or functions from a style segment in the
    <head> section.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Mar 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    Do I need to add anything else but what you have shown?

    > <img style="border:0;" src="jugs.jpg" alt="Two earthy containers">
    , Mar 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, quothed:

    > Do I need to add anything else but what you have shown?
    >
    > > <img style="border:0;" src="jugs.jpg" alt="Two earthy containers">


    It depends on if you have anything else screwed up.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Mar 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Re: How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a livelink?

    wrote :
    > Do I need to add anything else but what you have shown?
    >
    >> <img style="border:0;" src="jugs.jpg" alt="Two earthy containers">

    >


    I do not agree with some of what you were replied.

    First, it's best to indicate the width and height of the image so that
    the browser does not have to process this info when rendering the page.
    The parsing+rendering of the image is a bit faster.

    Second, I personally strongly recommend that you do not remove the
    border on a clickable image (also called/referred as reactive image)
    because such border may be the only thing revealing easily and visually
    to the user that it is a clickable image. A link or clickable image
    should always be easy to recognize as such.


    Web Authoring FAQ: Images
    {
    7.6. How do I eliminate the blue border around linked images?

    In your HTML, you can specify the BORDER attribute for the image:

    <a href=...><img src=... alt=... border="0"></a>

    Or in your CSS, you can specify the border property for linked images:

    a img { border: none ; }

    However, *_note that removing the border that indicates an image is a
    link makes it harder for users to distinguish quickly and easily which
    images on a web page are clickable._*
    }

    http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/images.html#no-border

    Also:

    {
    One of the most common questions on HTML authoring is how to get rid of
    the "ugly border", and the answer -> is technically simple: add the
    attribute border="0" into the img tag. This cannot force anything;
    browsers may still override it. For example, the Opera browser lets the
    user specify "Always have border on image links" rather simply, via the
    preferences settings. And on browsers with sufficient support to
    stylesheets, e.g. on IE 4, a user can write a user's style sheet which
    suggests borders around image links and declare the suggestions as
    !important, to override author's stylesheets.

    But at present the border="0" attribute mostly works; and that exactly
    is the problem. *_If there are no borders around an image, the user does
    not see what images are links._* Browsing becomes guesswork, trial and
    error.
    }
    Links Want To Be Links
    What about the "ugly borders"?
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/links.html#borders

    Third, if you want your clickable image to be optimally accessible and
    conformant to accessibility guidelines, you may want to specify the
    target/destination of the link in the title attribute in the link.

    E.g.:
    <a href="[Mom's website url]" title="Visit my mom's website"><img
    src="[path]/mom.gif" width="150" height="200" alt="My mom"></a>

    4th, for beginners wishing to learn HTML 4.01 and CSS, you'll find good
    resources, links (that I recommend) here:

    http://www.gtalbot.org/NvuSection/NvuWebDesignTips/WebDesignResources.html#LearningHTMLCSS

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Mar 27, 2006
    #11
  12. Re: How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a livelink?

    Gérard Talbot wrote :
    > wrote :
    >> Do I need to add anything else but what you have shown?
    >>
    >>> <img style="border:0;" src="jugs.jpg" alt="Two earthy containers">

    >>

    >
    > I do not agree with some of what you were replied.
    >
    > First, it's best to indicate the width and height of the image so that
    > the browser does not have to process this info when rendering the page.
    > The parsing+rendering of the image is a bit faster.


    "TIP: Always use WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes with images, and they
    should equal the actual size of the image, rather than be used to force
    the browser to resize it.

    The WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes let the browser lay out the entire page
    before it succeeds in loading all of the graphics. Without them, it has
    to wait until the graphic is loaded before it knows where to put
    anything below or to the right of the graphic. Over a modem connection,
    it could take a while to load all the graphics, and the user may be
    faced with a blank screen until then. It's much more friendly to let the
    user start reading the page earlier (...)"

    quote coming from
    Dan's Web Tips: Images
    http://webtips.dan.info/images.html


    "The width and height attributes are necessary because if they are
    excluded, the browser will tend to calculate the size as the image
    loads, instead of when the page loads, which means that the layout of
    the document may jump around while the page is loading."

    quote from HTML tutorial for beginners on image at HTML Dog
    http://www.htmldog.com/guides/htmlbeginner/images/

    "If you specify a different width to the actual size of the file, many
    browsers will resize it for you. It is much better to provide an image
    of the correct size and give that real size here. If you don’t supply
    the size, the browser may need to rearrange the page as the images are
    downloaded to fit them all in; by supplying a size, the browser can
    leave the correct sized space and insert the image when downloaded."

    quote from Mark Tranchant's HTML tutorial for beginners on image
    http://tranchant.plus.com/web/html-tutorial/img


    > Second, I personally strongly recommend that you do not remove the
    > border on a clickable image (also called/referred as reactive image)
    > because such border may be the only thing revealing easily and visually
    > to the user that it is a clickable image. A link or clickable image
    > should always be easy to recognize as such.



    Usability guru Jakob Nielsen also mentions clickability as an important
    aspect saying: "Make obvious what's clickable" and "To maximize the
    perceived affordance of clickability, color and underline the link text.
    Users shouldn't have to guess or scrub the page to find out where they
    can click." That must apply to clickable images too.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
    =?windows-1252?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Mar 27, 2006
    #12
  13. dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Gérard Talbot <> wrote:

    > ...I personally strongly recommend that you do not remove the
    > border on a clickable image (also called/referred as reactive image)
    > because such border may be the only thing revealing easily and visually
    > to the user that it is a clickable image. A link or clickable image
    > should always be easy to recognize as such.


    Why would you "strongly recommend" something because something
    else "may" be the case? It is for good reason that so many people
    ask how to remove these ugly border (as you rightly point out
    they do).

    There are other ways to indicate that they are clickable.

    Sometimes, they are just obviously clickable as in a list of
    thumbnails even without the words "Click on the following to
    enlarge" or to that effect.

    Sometimes it is better to have that than a million ugly bordered
    thumbnails.

    Sometimes, it does not matter whether they are known beforehand
    to be clickable. This surprises? Think, maybe there is a very
    clear other way to link and this is just anextra facility. Or
    maybe just a nice surprise. Is there no room for subtlety? For
    surprise?

    Next you will be telling folk to underline all their links!
    beware of joining the army talibaning their way through the
    streets of html <wicked grin... >

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 27, 2006
    #13
  14. Re: How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a livelink?

    dorayme wrote :
    > In article <>,
    > Gérard Talbot <> wrote:
    >
    >> ...I personally strongly recommend that you do not remove the
    >> border on a clickable image (also called/referred as reactive image)
    >> because such border may be the only thing revealing easily and visually
    >> to the user that it is a clickable image. A link or clickable image
    >> should always be easy to recognize as such.

    >
    > Why would you "strongly recommend" something because something
    > else "may" be the case? It is for good reason that so many people
    > ask how to remove these ugly border (as you rightly point out
    > they do).
    >


    For efficiency, consistency and usability reasons. The user should not
    even have to think half a second on whether this image is clickable or
    not when viewing that image. Vincent Flanders, Jakob Nielsen and lots of
    usability and web experience gurus all agree on this.

    > There are other ways to indicate that they are clickable.
    >


    But they are not the most obvious, immediately recognizable ways;
    Nielsen refers to "maximum perceived affordance for clickability".

    > Sometimes, they are just obviously clickable as in a list of
    > thumbnails even without the words "Click on the following to
    > enlarge" or to that effect.
    >
    > Sometimes it is better to have that than a million ugly bordered
    > thumbnails.
    >


    Sometimes, people exaggerate the ugliness they see and underestimate
    visual efficiency, practical consistency of site design from an user's
    perspective. Remember that a web author usually knows very well his own
    web site; a first time visitor may not and he will be reliably helped by
    a blue border around an image.

    > Sometimes, it does not matter whether they are known beforehand
    > to be clickable. This surprises?


    Most of the time, for a very wide majority of websites, it is in the
    best interests of the web author and in the best interests of the
    visitors that clickable images be easily known beforehand to be
    clickable. Of course, there are exceptions where it may matter less.

    Think, maybe there is a very
    > clear other way to link and this is just anextra facility. Or
    > maybe just a nice surprise. Is there no room for subtlety? For
    > surprise?
    >


    I've seen several Flash-based sites which were like that: I failed to
    notice what was clickable. In fact, I didn't even think (didn't become
    aware) there was an element over here or over there which was clickable
    in the webpage.

    > Next you will be telling folk to underline all their links!


    Browser manufacturers have already decided so: the default value for
    links is to underline them.

    > beware of joining the army talibaning their way through the
    > streets of html <wicked grin... >
    >


    Talibaning? Your comment is over-excessively exaggerated. Going against
    web design consistency won't improve user experience: it'll be the
    reverse for a very wide majority of webpages and types of websites.

    Same thing with dotted focus lines (or outlines) when a link get
    focused. Newbies often want to remove such dotted focus outlines but
    they don't realize that doing so makes their webpage less accessible and
    less usable. And on this, no one can seriously bring up the ugliness of
    those borders.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Mar 27, 2006
    #14
  15. Re: How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a livelink?

    On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Gérard Talbot wrote:

    > Sometimes, people exaggerate the ugliness they see and underestimate
    > visual efficiency, practical consistency of site design from an
    > user's perspective. Remember that a web author usually knows very
    > well his own web site; a first time visitor may not and he will be
    > reliably helped by a blue border around an image.


    Well put.

    And (without specific reference to any particular page discussed
    here), to my way of thinking there is nothing so *really* ugly as a
    page which is scattered with "Click Here" directions, whose presence
    was only felt necessary because the author had gone to excessive
    lengths to camouflage all of the /normal/ indicators that something is
    a link. So much for misguided "subtlety" :-((

    regards
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 28, 2006
    #15
  16. dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Gérard Talbot wrote:
    >
    > > Sometimes, people exaggerate the ugliness they see and underestimate
    > > visual efficiency, practical consistency of site design from an
    > > user's perspective. Remember that a web author usually knows very
    > > well his own web site; a first time visitor may not and he will be
    > > reliably helped by a blue border around an image.

    >
    > Well put.
    >


    Before doing too much clapping, you may need to consider exactly
    what this was a response to. It may very well be that there are
    clear cases where a set of thumbnails on a site are quite
    obviously links. The only way to sustain your clapping behaviour
    is to exaggerate and distort what I said (as you do, see below)
    and simply not use your imagination (this would take longer to
    explain, but I would be happy to do this if anyone was
    interested).


    > And (without specific reference to any particular page discussed
    > here), to my way of thinking there is nothing so *really* ugly as a
    > page which is scattered with "Click Here" directions, whose presence
    > was only felt necessary because the author had gone to excessive
    > lengths to camouflage all of the /normal/ indicators that something is
    > a link. So much for misguided "subtlety" :-((
    >
    > regards


    Talk about straw men! I am always very suspicious of religions
    and orthodoxies especially when adherents have to use such
    devices to clap on their fellows and make their points. I did not
    talk about "Click here directions" being "scattered all over the
    place" and would not dream of such a thing. You choose an
    exaggerated case. Here the price of ugly borders may well be the
    price worth paying. They may even not be ugly in some situations.

    This is the sort of tone and message coming from the gent you are
    so happy to clap: railroading all in the name of the religion on
    every detail. Yes, there is subtlety and taste and design
    considerations and you need to get used to these things as much
    as you obviously in the finer details of the technical sides of
    html and css. One size does not fit all, there are other ways to
    skin a cat besides blind obedience to certain practices.

    You might have more usefully said to Mr Talbot (who made some
    points in his original post, several times repeated, some of them
    good) that unless one has some reasons not to use link borders,
    one should do so. This is a very different tone and message to
    the one he made. And it is a very different one to the one you
    clap.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2006
    #16
  17. dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Gérard Talbot <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote :
    > > In article <>,
    > > Gérard Talbot <> wrote:


    snip

    > > There are other ways to indicate that they are clickable.
    > >

    >
    > But they are not the most obvious, immediately recognizable ways;
    > Nielsen refers to "maximum perceived affordance for clickability".
    >


    You cannot know that they are not the most obvious in general.
    You are too impressed with the main (and generally good) messages
    coming from intelligent people

    > > Sometimes, they are just obviously clickable as in a list of
    > > thumbnails even without the words "Click on the following to
    > > enlarge" or to that effect.
    > >
    > > Sometimes it is better to have that than a million ugly bordered
    > > thumbnails.
    > >

    >
    > Sometimes, people exaggerate the ugliness they see and underestimate
    > visual efficiency, practical consistency of site design from an user's
    > perspective. Remember that a web author usually knows very well his own
    > web site; a first time visitor may not and he will be reliably helped by
    > a blue border around an image.


    Your response to a fairly clear case I put is to ignore it and
    talk about the dangers your prefered orthodoxy (rightly) would
    avoid. Never give an inch eh?

    I won't joke with you too much from now on, Mr Talbot (as you
    view my lame attempts as serious exaggerations).

    I really do think you need to be more independently minded.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Re: How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a livelink?

    dorayme wrote :
    > In article <>,
    > Gérard Talbot <> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote :
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Gérard Talbot <> wrote:

    >
    > snip
    >
    >>> There are other ways to indicate that they are clickable.
    >>>

    >> But they are not the most obvious, immediately recognizable ways;
    >> Nielsen refers to "maximum perceived affordance for clickability".
    >>

    >
    > You cannot know that they are not the most obvious in general.


    We're talking in general terms. I say that most of the times, having a
    blue border around an image makes it clear to the visitor that he can
    click the image, makes it clear to him that it is a clickable image,
    that he is viewing a reactive image.

    > You are too impressed with the main (and generally good) messages
    > coming from intelligent people
    >


    Why the personal comment?
    Do you read my mind? over the internet? Your comment suggests that you
    do not believe that I can reach, all by myself, my own conclusions on
    webpage designs/decisions.

    I am the only one in this thread who genuinely tried to back up his
    claims, his opinions with sources, references, links and quotes. You
    certainly have not.


    >>> Sometimes, they are just obviously clickable as in a list of
    >>> thumbnails even without the words "Click on the following to
    >>> enlarge" or to that effect.
    >>>
    >>> Sometimes it is better to have that than a million ugly bordered
    >>> thumbnails.
    >>>

    >> Sometimes, people exaggerate the ugliness they see and underestimate
    >> visual efficiency, practical consistency of site design from an user's
    >> perspective. Remember that a web author usually knows very well his own
    >> web site; a first time visitor may not and he will be reliably helped by
    >> a blue border around an image.

    >
    > Your response to a fairly clear case I put


    A fairly clear case starts with an url, with concrete example, with a
    demonstration, with a testcase, with something tangible that people can
    see, can test, with a whole and complete webpage where anyone/everyone
    can examine a webpage and then make up his mind, choose his side, choose
    his webdesign "party", "orthodoxy", etc.. A fairly clear case does not
    start with "Sometimes" and does not include "maybe", "perhaps", "could
    be", "it's possible" and other general, abstract, hesitation vocabulary.

    Furthermore, if you're bringing up the point of ugliness as something
    that can override a general consistent web design principle that a very
    wide majority of books, authors, gurus, usability studies agree on,
    converge on. In other words, your "clear case" better show us a really
    really *_ugly_* case of ugliness 2px thick blue border surrounding
    thumbnail images.

    > is to ignore it and
    > talk about the dangers your prefered orthodoxy (rightly) would
    > avoid. Never give an inch eh?
    >


    I'm not ignoring it. Read again. There may be exceptions but, generally
    speaking, following such rule - which is, I repeat, a sane, safe web
    design of improving user experience, navigability and usability - is my
    best recommendation. *My* recommendation.

    > I won't joke with you too much from now on, Mr Talbot (as you
    > view my lame attempts as serious exaggerations).


    Lame attempts: certainly. Over-excessive characterization with words
    like talibaning: definitely. A serious attempt would be to start with an
    url. Otherwise, at least, start with some books, authors, reviews,
    accessibility article, etc.. which demonstrates that real ugliness can
    and should override sound web design practices promoting intuitive
    clickability thanks to a simple (no icon to wonder/guess about, no
    reading on what is clickable to do) graphical cue.

    A serious attempt in a newsgroup starts with a real name too, Mr
    dorayme. Lars Eighner once said in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
    newsgroup:
    "someone who refuses to identify himself [in discussion newsgroups]
    cannot expect his opinions to count for anything."

    >
    > I really do think you need to be more independently minded.
    >


    I hope the original poster will do that and make his mind for himself.
    The original poster was fully and completely answered on his main topic
    and on other issues that he raised: like tutorials and references. Now,
    it will be all up to him to make his mind and then do whatever he wants
    to do with his images. Same with you. And same with me.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Mar 28, 2006
    #18
  19. Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Gérard Talbot wrote:
    > >
    > > > Sometimes, people exaggerate the ugliness they see and underestimate
    > > > visual efficiency, practical consistency of site design from an
    > > > user's perspective. Remember that a web author usually knows very
    > > > well his own web site; a first time visitor may not and he will be
    > > > reliably helped by a blue border around an image.

    > >
    > > Well put.
    > >

    >
    > Before doing too much clapping, you may need to consider exactly
    > what this was a response to. It may very well be that there are
    > clear cases where a set of thumbnails on a site are quite
    > obviously links. The only way to sustain your clapping behaviour
    > is to exaggerate and distort what I said (as you do, see below)
    > and simply not use your imagination (this would take longer to
    > explain, but I would be happy to do this if anyone was
    > interested).
    >
    >
    > > And (without specific reference to any particular page discussed
    > > here), to my way of thinking there is nothing so *really* ugly as a
    > > page which is scattered with "Click Here" directions, whose presence
    > > was only felt necessary because the author had gone to excessive
    > > lengths to camouflage all of the /normal/ indicators that something is
    > > a link. So much for misguided "subtlety" :-((
    > >
    > > regards

    >
    > Talk about straw men! I am always very suspicious of religions
    > and orthodoxies especially when adherents have to use such
    > devices to clap on their fellows and make their points. I did not
    > talk about "Click here directions" being "scattered all over the
    > place" and would not dream of such a thing. You choose an
    > exaggerated case. Here the price of ugly borders may well be the
    > price worth paying. They may even not be ugly in some situations.
    >
    > This is the sort of tone and message coming from the gent you are
    > so happy to clap: railroading all in the name of the religion on
    > every detail. Yes, there is subtlety and taste and design
    > considerations and you need to get used to these things as much
    > as you obviously in the finer details of the technical sides of
    > html and css. One size does not fit all, there are other ways to
    > skin a cat besides blind obedience to certain practices.
    >
    > You might have more usefully said to Mr Talbot (who made some
    > points in his original post, several times repeated, some of them
    > good) that unless one has some reasons not to use link borders,
    > one should do so. This is a very different tone and message to
    > the one he made. And it is a very different one to the one you
    > clap.


    Hear hear! Give that lady a cigar!

    I agree with you (for a change.) -And so do most web designers. Most
    seem not to want the blight of a border on their images nor even the
    focus ring. Yes, there are times when indicating link (or link vs.
    visited) status is prudent or desirable, but more often than not the
    clickable state of a thumbnail is (1) obvious in its own right, (2)
    apparent from the pointer on hover, and (3) not even remotely obscure to
    anyone who has surfed the Web for more than a few hours. Furthermore,
    such a link is seldom critical to the page itself, although if it is,
    associated content can easily and usually does make this obvious.

    I understand the significance of the focus ring to accessibility, but it
    should be a browser-set option, off by default, not something that mars
    the aesthetics of everyone's page needlessly and annoyingly.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Mar 28, 2006
    #19
  20. Ed Mullen Guest

    Re: How do I get rid of the border on an image when I make it a livelink?

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > I understand the significance of the focus ring to accessibility, but it
    > should be a browser-set option, off by default, not something that mars
    > the aesthetics of everyone's page needlessly and annoyingly.
    >


    FWIW, the applicable Mozilla preference setting is:

    browser.display.focus_ring_width

    default = 1 pixel, change to zero to turn off.

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net
    Ed Mullen, Mar 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kian
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    67,531
    SickHabitz
    Nov 27, 2012
  2. Martin
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,042
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Cederberg?=
    Jun 29, 2004
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    14,098
    Prgodis
    Aug 20, 2006
  4. Kevin Audleman

    Getting rid of border around image

    Kevin Audleman, Feb 10, 2008, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,307
    Jonathan N. Little
    Feb 13, 2008
  5. Jack Jarmush
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,557
    Jack Jarmush
    Aug 3, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page