Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a javascript function or dhtml.
Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use this for it's core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The four categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. If selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a standard, but none the less is effective because users are familiar with tabular menus. Users however familiar with blue underline text (the majority of site on the internet apply different colors, so I'd say the universal sign of a link is just the underline), are also familiar with a drop down window. They are familiar with side bar menus and horizontal tabs. Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. From how the menu is displayed, to how it's organized. This is what I mean by no such thing a standard navigation. However, I think the closest thing you could call standard navigation is underlined test links centered at the bottom of a page. It's an extremely common practice, but not very effective. Could you imagine having to scroll to the bottom of each page to navigate a site? Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: Lofback, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:36 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? > As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation > non-standard > in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard > navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. I don't agree. Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard HTML button widget. These are instantly recognizable and usable. I'd argue that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as you can get. Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot spots" is nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the app. Make the widgets different enough, and users just won't do it. Unless the site is the only place to get what they want, they will go find another site that is easier to use. And this is especially true of the non-techie "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"s who makes up a large portion of the user/customer pool. So why put a user through it? They want fast and easy to use. What's wrong with giving them what they want? And a simple way to do that is to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't force me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I want. They use standard navigation links and buttons and my user experience is great. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
