5 ms·

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 di

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
        [deleted]
        chungy 4y ago
        The link styling is inconsistent with basically every other web page; underlines haven't been "everywhere" since the late 1990s (for better or worse), but distinguishing links has usually been done via the use of color, maybe some other border effect. The style chosen by this particular web page comes across not as hyperlinks, but as a weird choice to randomly remove words and phrases from the main sentence matter, rendering them more difficult to read and comprehend, and worse, leaving the reader unaware this this choice actually denoted a link.
        sloum 4y ago
        Using color alone to distinguish links is explicitly an accessibility violation. Underlines are not a requirement. I certainly agree that the link system here is atypical. It just isnt an accessibility violation.
    - 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.

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
        [deleted]
        chungy 4y ago
        The link styling is inconsistent with basically every other web page; underlines haven't been "everywhere" since the late 1990s (for better or worse), but distinguishing links has usually been done via the use of color, maybe some other border effect. The style chosen by this particular web page comes across not as hyperlinks, but as a weird choice to randomly remove words and phrases from the main sentence matter, rendering them more difficult to read and comprehend, and worse, leaving the reader unaware this this choice actually denoted a link.
        sloum 4y ago
        Using color alone to distinguish links is explicitly an accessibility violation. Underlines are not a requirement. I certainly agree that the link system here is atypical. It just isnt an accessibility violation.
  - 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.