4 ms·
>many links don't look like links (because they're black or gray, like the rest of the text) I strongly agree with this. I see that mouse-over styling is being
by oftenwrong 8y ago
>many links don't look like links (because they're black or gray, like the rest of the text)
I strongly agree with this. I see that mouse-over styling is being used for links. I think links should be always formatted in a way that makes it obvious that they are links. In other words, I like the old-fashioned way of having persistent link underlines, or one could do what Wikipedia and others do and make all links consistently blue text, which seems to work well enough.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoThe naive approach would just be to underline everything. Here are some examples: https://sr.ht/nK6J.png https://sr.ht/nK6J.png https://sr.ht/LLUJ.png https://sr.ht/LLUJ.png https://sr.ht/MavH.png https://sr.ht/MavH.png Honestly I find this a bit distracting. I'm not opposed to adding underlines in a few places - perhaps anywhere that the links don't convey their nature with the blue color would be a good compromise. What do you think?
- oftenwrong 8y ago>What do you think? I don't find it distracting. It is a bit ugly, though. I like ugly-but-functional UI, but I understand not everyone does. The advantage is that I can see clearly what is clickable. For example, I did not realise the relative timestamps ("a day ago", "an hour ago") were links until I saw your altered screenshots with the underlines. I think any of these would make it clear enough: - All links blue - All links underlined - All non-blue links underlined
- clairity 8y agomaybe use a slightly darker blue and a lighter weight underline that wouldn't contrast quite as much? (i'm not a designer so take that for what it's worth)
- ricardobeat 8y agoThat actually looks great.