4 ms·

It's a visual design issue really, and not just purely usability light the rest. By now, most people are aware of how paginations work. I agree with you, but I

by seivan 11y ago

It's a visual design issue really, and not just purely usability light the rest. By now, most people are aware of how paginations work. I agree with you, but I am just stating that at most, it only serves as purely aesthetics. You could replace underlines, with hover with a transition effect or animate on appearance (as going back or forwards), etc.

jalfresi 11y ago
"..You could replace underlines, with hover with a transition effect or animate on appearance (as going back or forwards), etc." No, that misses the point. An underline has a very specific meaning. It is not just aesthetics. If put a handle on a door that you push to open, people will pull on the door on their first attempt. By doing this you've changed the meaning of a handle to all users of the building. Now, a user can no longer rely on the visual affordances provided by "door handle". They must navigate and interpret each and every interaction with a door in that building. Removing an underline remove a very important part of what an hyperlink is. And I would argue that the colour of a hyperlink is just as important.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  But an underline is arbitrary. Similarly the colour blue is arbitrary. You only think that it makes sense because that's what is currently common. If you had never used a computer before, there is nothing discoverable about blue underlined words. They could be red italics and it would make absolutely no difference. A handle is shaped to make it possible to open a door. It has a discoverable purpose (some handles more than others). If we decide that arbitrary UI representations should stay just because they were historically common, then we will never improve our user interfaces. I'm all for avoiding surprising the user, but saying that an underline has an intrinsic meaning for a hyper link is just wrong.
  - jalfresi 11y ago
    "If we decide that arbitrary UI representations should stay just because they were historically common, then we will never improve our user interfaces." Putting aside the assumption that hyperlinks require improvement, you've mistakenly declared that certain visual attributes were chosen arbitrarily and therefor are fair game to change. But it is those very same attributes that provide the visual affordance required for users to determine the function they perform. That is, whilst the selection of those attributes, in the beginning, may have been arbitrary, they no longer are. Consistency in application is one of the best ways to pass on knowledge. Whilst blue underlined text doesn't have anything that intrinsically suggests its action, consistent application of that visual language builds up the affordance in the user: all blue underlined text is a hyperlink. Look at it this way; at some point in the past someone decided that the highlight on GUI buttons should appear to come from the top-left of the screen. This was a completely arbitrary decision. However, with the rest of the GUI adopting the similar design decision, a cohesive impression is built up. It became obvious to users that this meant that a button was raised and could be clicked with the mouse cursor. But if you design your GUI with the highlight coming from the bottom-right, no matter home much better you think this will improve the GUI and how much more sense it makes, your button will appear to be inset and selected. That is, whilst the selection of those attributes, in the beginning, may have been arbitrary, they no longer are. And so it is with hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are underlined blue text because they are. Unless there is some radical, obvious improvement to be made, any changes to these attributes will be to the users detriment. Most often, these changes are attributed to improving integration with the web page design, introducing cohesiveness, but this is mistaking hyperlinks as elements of the design. They are not, they are UI elements and as such should sit outside the style of the web page. With the politest of respect and IMHO of course :)
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Any 'detriment' will be temporary. We all play games with novel controls, and are willing to learn that. Why not a new browser? In fact, something new could get a cult following, if its actually even a little better in any way. I'm in favor or innovation, even in user interfaces. Otherwise we'd not have automatic doors (which had remained unchanged for 2000 years) or windows that slide up and down. Or TV remotes.

by seivan 11y ago

jalfresi 11y ago

"..You could replace underlines, with hover with a transition effect or animate on appearance (as going back or forwards), etc." No, that misses the point. An underline has a very specific meaning. It is not just aesthetics. If put a handle on a door that you push to open, people will pull on the door on their first attempt. By doing this you've changed the meaning of a handle to all users of the building. Now, a user can no longer rely on the visual affordances provided by "door handle". They must navigate and interpret each and every interaction with a door in that building. Removing an underline remove a very important part of what an hyperlink is. And I would argue that the colour of a hyperlink is just as important.

mikekchar 11y ago
But an underline is arbitrary. Similarly the colour blue is arbitrary. You only think that it makes sense because that's what is currently common. If you had never used a computer before, there is nothing discoverable about blue underlined words. They could be red italics and it would make absolutely no difference. A handle is shaped to make it possible to open a door. It has a discoverable purpose (some handles more than others). If we decide that arbitrary UI representations should stay just because they were historically common, then we will never improve our user interfaces. I'm all for avoiding surprising the user, but saying that an underline has an intrinsic meaning for a hyper link is just wrong.
- jalfresi 11y ago
  "If we decide that arbitrary UI representations should stay just because they were historically common, then we will never improve our user interfaces." Putting aside the assumption that hyperlinks require improvement, you've mistakenly declared that certain visual attributes were chosen arbitrarily and therefor are fair game to change. But it is those very same attributes that provide the visual affordance required for users to determine the function they perform. That is, whilst the selection of those attributes, in the beginning, may have been arbitrary, they no longer are. Consistency in application is one of the best ways to pass on knowledge. Whilst blue underlined text doesn't have anything that intrinsically suggests its action, consistent application of that visual language builds up the affordance in the user: all blue underlined text is a hyperlink. Look at it this way; at some point in the past someone decided that the highlight on GUI buttons should appear to come from the top-left of the screen. This was a completely arbitrary decision. However, with the rest of the GUI adopting the similar design decision, a cohesive impression is built up. It became obvious to users that this meant that a button was raised and could be clicked with the mouse cursor. But if you design your GUI with the highlight coming from the bottom-right, no matter home much better you think this will improve the GUI and how much more sense it makes, your button will appear to be inset and selected. That is, whilst the selection of those attributes, in the beginning, may have been arbitrary, they no longer are. And so it is with hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are underlined blue text because they are. Unless there is some radical, obvious improvement to be made, any changes to these attributes will be to the users detriment. Most often, these changes are attributed to improving integration with the web page design, introducing cohesiveness, but this is mistaking hyperlinks as elements of the design. They are not, they are UI elements and as such should sit outside the style of the web page. With the politest of respect and IMHO of course :)
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Any 'detriment' will be temporary. We all play games with novel controls, and are willing to learn that. Why not a new browser? In fact, something new could get a cult following, if its actually even a little better in any way. I'm in favor or innovation, even in user interfaces. Otherwise we'd not have automatic doors (which had remained unchanged for 2000 years) or windows that slide up and down. Or TV remotes.