i do not prefer underline in any toc [only the hover].
it's all very simple to fix - i did it the same way:
this is an exerpt-.
dl a:link, dl a:active,
ul.list-toc a, ul.list-toc a:link, ul.list-toc a:active,
dl.dl-toc a, dl.dl-toc a:link, dl.dl-toc a:active {
text-decoration: none;
color: #0000ff;
}
dl a:hover, ul.list-toc a:hover, dl.dl-toc a:hover {
text-decoration: underline;
}
dl a:visited, ul.list-toc a:visited, dl.list-toc a:visited {
color: #993333;
}
off - too busy, sorry.
./allan
Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
> > At 21:04 27.04.2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >
> >> Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
> >> > At 19:59 27.04.2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Don't misunderstand: when i said TOC I meant the list of links on the
> >> >>> front page etc. have you checked the front page on perl.apache.org?
> >> >>> These lists aren't generated with <ul> but with various <dl> inside a
> >> >>> <div class="toc">. I guess this was forgotten.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, we Allan suggested this change, I've agreed with Allan, nobody
> >> >> said otherwise, the change went it. What's wrong with index.html pages
> >> >> having their items underlined?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, I missed that part :(
> >> > Well, I think it looked better before. A lot cleaner in my opinion. But
> >> > if you prefer it as it is now, I won't complain about it.
> >>
> >> I think the point is that not in what are our private preferences are.
> >> It's about deciding what's good for the average user.
> >>
> >> It's a know fact that all usability consultants preach that the sites
> >> shouldn't change the expected behavior to make it easier on the user.
> >> That means underlined links, blue color for the links, redish for the
> >> visited links.
> >>
> >> We try to follow this rule with a few exceptions where we think the
> >> underlining adds too much noise and it's absolutely clear that the menu
> >> is comprised of links. So it's easy with the menu.
> >>
> >> Now the TOC part is harder, since it's not clear that TOC is a clickable
> >> menu, but you learn that fast.
> >>
> >> So far so good. The rest of the elements which aren't "menus" should
> >> have the default behaviour. It made sense to have no-underline for
> >> index.html items when they had no description. Now when the description
> >> is in place the underlining is more importants, since not everything is
> >> a link (think of color blind people). Sure people can learn after a
> >> while that index.html's items always start with links, but that's much
> >> harder when the links are mixed with non links (and it doesn't work for
> >> everybody, think color-blind again).
> >
> >
> > Well, I agree that underlining is good in general cases. However, for
> > the TOCs (index.html I mean), I think it "adds too much noise". My
> > reasoning is that blue or red == clickable. We don't use any other
> > colors than black for normal text anyway, so people shouldn't be too
> > surprised. Blue stands out pretty much too, so that's a plus. Now for
> > the color-blind, it's true that it'd be harder, but I expect them to
> > maybe browse with some extra accessibility options on. usability-wise,
> > our site is very good when opposed to others. That's just my
> > point-of-view: it adds too much noise.
>
> I see your point. Let's hear what others think.
>
> I'm fine with either way (like better the non-underlined, but
> technically think it's better to have underlined).
>
> Allan prefers underline (default) for index.html items.
>
> Bill and Per Einar are for overriding the default with non-underlined.
>
> Jonathan, Thomas, what do you think?
>
> >> If you think this logic is wrong, please explain why and then we can
> >> re-consider. If someones doesn't participate in the discussions, it's
> >> obvious that his opinion won't be heard by others, and the decisions are
> >> made based on the opinions of the others...
> >
> >
> > Sorry, that was my wrong, I didn't read it closely enough and failed to
> > catch this point.
>
> no problem :)
>
> --
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
> http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
> http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
