3 ms·
But please don't do things like this: > Cross-references, denoted with small caps, are clickable. > Links to outside material are denoted with a red circle, l
by unmole 5y ago
But please don't do things like this:
> Cross-references, denoted with small caps, are clickable.
> Links to outside material are denoted with a red circle, like so.
Hyperlinks are almost universally distinguished by underlining them. There is no rational reason to invent a new design language and expect people to learn it. And for what benefit? The seemingly random capitalisation of words and weird circles in the middle of the text makes it much more jarring than simple underlining.
- bombcar 5y agoThe sum and the whole of the law shall be do whatever everyone else does unless you have a damn good reason, imo.
- flyingfences 5y agoThe site also has a page on Underlining [0], in which the author explains his perspective on underlining as an unsightly relic of mechanical typewriters, which had no other ways -- italicizing, bolding, different fonts, small-caps -- of emphasizing text. His is a style guide for professional publishing, in which appearances matter. [0] https://practicaltypography.com/underlining.html https://practicaltypography.com/underlining.html
- unmole 5y ago> His is a style guide for professional publishing, in which appearances matter. All the more reason not to have jarring capitalisation and weird circles.
- kergonath 5y agoTo me hyperlinks are about the only valid use of underline. It’s clumsy and ugly when used for emphasis or in titles, but hyperlinks cannot really be distinguished otherwise (a different colour helps as well, but you cannot guarantee that it will be rendered correctly, and it is distracting in a long text).