4 ms·

document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(it => it.style.textDecoration='underline') It drives me absolutely batshit when I have to wave my cursor all over

document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(it => it.style.textDecoration='underline') It drives me absolutely batshit when I have to wave my cursor all over the place to find hyperlinks that the browser has been displaying since the 90s

Shared404 4y ago
Internal links are at the top, or wrapped in { text } and external links are [ text ]. Does it really require that much cursor waving? It's nice to have the distinction, and I personally like the visual impact.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  It's not a problem if you don't care about accessibility
  - Shared404 4y ago
    Screen readers will respond to the fact that it is an href will they not? The braces/brackets do not appear in the source. Am I missing something?
    - Arnavion 4y ago
      You're missing that not everyone who wants accessible content is blind and using a screen reader.
      - Shared404 4y ago
        The links are accessible to everything which can determine an <a> exists, uniquely defined with a visual indicator that doesn't require color, and show before you hover if it is internal or external. Requiring a link to be underlined doesn't seem productive from an accessibility perspective to me. I did some research on a11y and didn't see anything in the audit checklists that this violates [0], could you explain what the precise issue is? [0] obviously checklists aren't everything.
        junon 4y ago
        Patterns and consistency are a large part of accessibility.
        sloum 4y ago
        There is a clear pattern and clear consistency at play here and there is no violation of the w3c/wai standards involving these links.
        junon 4y ago
        It is not consistent with other websites. That was more my point.
        kristopolous 4y ago
        There's people who have expressed issues in the accessibility of the content therefore it's inaccessible. It's really that simple. You can heed to people's sincere requests or not. Using checklists to invalidates their concerns intentionally makes them invisible by putting in effort to invalidate their concerns. Again, nobody has to take action and everyone has free will here.
        sloum 4y ago
        The link styling system used on the wiki complies with all web accessibility standards: it clearly and consistently shows a link without using color as the sole determining factor. An underling is not required (whether you think it should be or not, though feel free to get involved, join a working group, and lobby for the change to your hearts content... though I think it will be an uphill battle for you). Accessibility standards are about helping those with disabilities. What you are experiencing is a difference of opinion about _usability_. I personally do not experience the same usability issues, but to each their own on that one. Accessibility and usability are two very different things and should not be conflated.
        deleted 4y ago
      - zzo38computer 4y ago
        That is true, but unfortunately it is not implemented very well for other purposes; most of the stuff relating to accessibility tends to be made for blind users. While it is possible to help blind users, good accessibility would be able to help everyone, whether you can see perfectly fine or not. "ARIA view" with a user specified CSS and using a combination of HTML and ARIA roles to decide how to display, can be helpful, perhaps. (This would be true for form fields too; some web pages implement their own, but sometimes specify by ARIA codes, what they represent; you can use that to replace them by the standard widgets instead of their specialized ones.)
- ablob 4y ago
  It's breaking a standard with a typographic style that, in my case at least, disturbs reading
- mdaniel 4y ago
  ... and the icons are a mixture of the two and the name is a link and the "BY-NC-SA 4.0" is an internal link, not to be confused with the CC icon which goes to the license. The good thing about standards: so many to choose from! I'll try to bear your "new site, new visual iconography" preferences in mind when I build out my site and decide that Captialized links are offsite links, MiXeDcaSe are dynamically generated ones, and all text except hyperlinks will be blue underlines This person's site is clearly packed full of innovative idea; I don't understand why CSS tomfoolery needs to be one of them in order to make it stand out
  - maxbond 4y ago
    No self expression "needs" to be there. We can criticize it's effectiveness and accessibility, but let's not insist that people's individual blog sites conform to a uniform standard. I'd like the web to be weirder and more experimental. I'd also like users to be empowered to overwrite these decisions when it impacts their accessibility, or even if it's just not to their taste. We can have both.
- drivers99 4y ago
  It doesn't once you know the secret code (i.e. a user manual in the form of your comment). I read the page with interest but I thought those were just like a stylistic choice, like a stand-in for specifics (which makes sense for a hyperlink in retrospect).
- chungy 4y ago
  Yes, the convention is not at all obvious. I also thought it was a link-free page and closed it the first time thinking there wasn't really much to show.
tptacek 4y ago
Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mdaniel 4y ago
  Sorry about that, I did actually forget about that, but in my defense I offered something constructive to save others the trouble of having to cook up that console snippet themselves
- messe 4y ago
  One of the rules on HN I vehemently disagree with. These tangential annoyances often coincide with genuine accessibility issues, and should be called out when seen.
  - zzo38computer 4y ago
    I agree with you, to be called out when seen if applicable, although maybe it would be useful to be able to separate which comments are about such thing than not. Fortunately, if there is such a top-level comment, any other comments can be replies to that and so you do not need to fill up the top-level comments with such kind of complaints, I think.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      If it were reliably contained to one thread I don't think there would even need to be a rule, yeah. I often see it where a bunch of top-level comments are spelling out the same 2 or 3 issues (some in a mean-spirited way), and though I care deeply about software accessibility, that is itself a usability issue for HN.
bxparks 4y ago
Thanks, I didn't realize that there any links on that page until I read your post.
nighthawk454 4y ago
Interestingly with Dark Reader on the links are visible! Had to turn it off to realize what the issue was
smitty1e 4y ago
There are times to be creative, .niarfer ot semit dna
- vgel 4y ago
  Funnily enough, this is actually a millenia-old way of writing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    it's actually kind of smart, you won't go back to the wrong line that way, and the reflected text is surprisingly easy to read.
jammi 4y ago
Thanks, I converted it into a Tampermonkey userscript to use on all the sites. // ==UserScript== // @name Underline links // @namespace http://tampermonkey.net/ // @version 0.1 // @description Underline all the links! // @author mdaniel // @match https://*/* // @match http://*/* // @grant none // ==/UserScript== (() => { document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(it => it.style.textDecoration='underline'); })();
taneq 4y ago
Ohhhhhhh yeah I read it on mobile and was wondering what all the brackets and braces were for.

Shared404 4y ago

Internal links are at the top, or wrapped in { text } and external links are [ text ]. Does it really require that much cursor waving? It's nice to have the distinction, and I personally like the visual impact.

kristopolous 4y ago
It's not a problem if you don't care about accessibility
- Shared404 4y ago
  Screen readers will respond to the fact that it is an href will they not? The braces/brackets do not appear in the source. Am I missing something?
  - Arnavion 4y ago
    You're missing that not everyone who wants accessible content is blind and using a screen reader.
    - Shared404 4y ago
      The links are accessible to everything which can determine an <a> exists, uniquely defined with a visual indicator that doesn't require color, and show before you hover if it is internal or external. Requiring a link to be underlined doesn't seem productive from an accessibility perspective to me. I did some research on a11y and didn't see anything in the audit checklists that this violates [0], could you explain what the precise issue is? [0] obviously checklists aren't everything.
      - junon 4y ago
        Patterns and consistency are a large part of accessibility.
        sloum 4y ago
        There is a clear pattern and clear consistency at play here and there is no violation of the w3c/wai standards involving these links.
        junon 4y ago
        It is not consistent with other websites. That was more my point.
      - kristopolous 4y ago
        There's people who have expressed issues in the accessibility of the content therefore it's inaccessible. It's really that simple. You can heed to people's sincere requests or not. Using checklists to invalidates their concerns intentionally makes them invisible by putting in effort to invalidate their concerns. Again, nobody has to take action and everyone has free will here.
        sloum 4y ago
        The link styling system used on the wiki complies with all web accessibility standards: it clearly and consistently shows a link without using color as the sole determining factor. An underling is not required (whether you think it should be or not, though feel free to get involved, join a working group, and lobby for the change to your hearts content... though I think it will be an uphill battle for you). Accessibility standards are about helping those with disabilities. What you are experiencing is a difference of opinion about _usability_. I personally do not experience the same usability issues, but to each their own on that one. Accessibility and usability are two very different things and should not be conflated.
        deleted 4y ago
    - zzo38computer 4y ago
      That is true, but unfortunately it is not implemented very well for other purposes; most of the stuff relating to accessibility tends to be made for blind users. While it is possible to help blind users, good accessibility would be able to help everyone, whether you can see perfectly fine or not. "ARIA view" with a user specified CSS and using a combination of HTML and ARIA roles to decide how to display, can be helpful, perhaps. (This would be true for form fields too; some web pages implement their own, but sometimes specify by ARIA codes, what they represent; you can use that to replace them by the standard widgets instead of their specialized ones.)
ablob 4y ago
It's breaking a standard with a typographic style that, in my case at least, disturbs reading
mdaniel 4y ago
... and the icons are a mixture of the two and the name is a link and the "BY-NC-SA 4.0" is an internal link, not to be confused with the CC icon which goes to the license. The good thing about standards: so many to choose from! I'll try to bear your "new site, new visual iconography" preferences in mind when I build out my site and decide that Captialized links are offsite links, MiXeDcaSe are dynamically generated ones, and all text except hyperlinks will be blue underlines This person's site is clearly packed full of innovative idea; I don't understand why CSS tomfoolery needs to be one of them in order to make it stand out
- maxbond 4y ago
  No self expression "needs" to be there. We can criticize it's effectiveness and accessibility, but let's not insist that people's individual blog sites conform to a uniform standard. I'd like the web to be weirder and more experimental. I'd also like users to be empowered to overwrite these decisions when it impacts their accessibility, or even if it's just not to their taste. We can have both.
drivers99 4y ago
It doesn't once you know the secret code (i.e. a user manual in the form of your comment). I read the page with interest but I thought those were just like a stylistic choice, like a stand-in for specifics (which makes sense for a hyperlink in retrospect).
chungy 4y ago
Yes, the convention is not at all obvious. I also thought it was a link-free page and closed it the first time thinking there wasn't really much to show.

tptacek 4y ago

Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mdaniel 4y ago
Sorry about that, I did actually forget about that, but in my defense I offered something constructive to save others the trouble of having to cook up that console snippet themselves
messe 4y ago
One of the rules on HN I vehemently disagree with. These tangential annoyances often coincide with genuine accessibility issues, and should be called out when seen.
- zzo38computer 4y ago
  I agree with you, to be called out when seen if applicable, although maybe it would be useful to be able to separate which comments are about such thing than not. Fortunately, if there is such a top-level comment, any other comments can be replies to that and so you do not need to fill up the top-level comments with such kind of complaints, I think.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    If it were reliably contained to one thread I don't think there would even need to be a rule, yeah. I often see it where a bunch of top-level comments are spelling out the same 2 or 3 issues (some in a mean-spirited way), and though I care deeply about software accessibility, that is itself a usability issue for HN.

bxparks 4y ago

Thanks, I didn't realize that there any links on that page until I read your post.

nighthawk454 4y ago

Interestingly with Dark Reader on the links are visible! Had to turn it off to realize what the issue was

smitty1e 4y ago

There are times to be creative, .niarfer ot semit dna

vgel 4y ago
Funnily enough, this is actually a millenia-old way of writing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  it's actually kind of smart, you won't go back to the wrong line that way, and the reflected text is surprisingly easy to read.

jammi 4y ago

Thanks, I converted it into a Tampermonkey userscript to use on all the sites. // ==UserScript== // @name Underline links // @namespace http://tampermonkey.net/ // @version 0.1 // @description Underline all the links! // @author mdaniel // @match https://*/* // @match http://*/* // @grant none // ==/UserScript== (() => { document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(it => it.style.textDecoration='underline'); })();

taneq 4y ago

Ohhhhhhh yeah I read it on mobile and was wondering what all the brackets and braces were for.