3 ms·
The issue with all of those is that they are different than '@' and '#': they aren't full-height characters that fill up most of the space, they have a lot of w
by Xuzz 16y ago
The issue with all of those is that they are different than '@' and '#': they aren't full-height characters that fill up most of the space, they have a lot of white space. Other ones that seem to have that same (desired?) property are '$', '&', and '%' -- maybe one of those would be better.
However, that negates your point about resembling the original link, so I'm not sure if they are better.
- gojomo 16y agoI understand an aesthetic problem with vertical asymmetry and non-alignment in conveying this meaning, as with a '^'. It's off the main-line of text. It's pointing away from the content. It doesn't connect strongly to the substance. I don't see the aesthetic advantage of 'fill up most of the space' -- as long as the glyph is easily recognizable and draws the eye to the substantive info. Conveying motion to the substance (as with '>' or to a lesser-extent the leaning '//') fits the meaning of an outlink. Providing a reminder of the elided part (as how ':' or '//' is suggestive of the missing 'http:// http://) also fits the link usage. I think '@' works for naming identities because it's evocative of email addresses and often read as 'at', suggesting a destination. Not sure why '#' won out; the familiarity of web users to '#anchors' in a page doesn't seem salient enough. '$' and '&' have such strong meanings they're harder to overload for other purposes.
- Xuzz 16y agoI think that '#' is a remnant of IRC channels, which used that 'tag' as well and are also focused on a specific subject. (Just a personal theory, though, no evidence.)