PDA

View Full Version : CSS Links



odd-1
11-12-2005, 03:39 PM
Hey, what's the easiest and quickest way to have links in CSS, that will hover, and when clicked, will hover the same as before?

most of the times I find myself wondering why the hell my links get clicked once and they are stuck at the visited color/font/bold thing, and I don't want my visitors to see the links like all the time.

thank you

mwinter
11-13-2005, 12:21 AM
Hey, what's the easiest and quickest way to have links in CSS, that will hover, and when clicked, will hover the same as before?Care to try explaining that again more clearly?


most of the times I find myself wondering why the hell my links get clicked once and they are stuck at the visited color/font/bold thingThat "visited color/font/bold thing" is a rather useful feature that allows users to see easily where they've been in a site. It's especially useful when there are many links to be followed.

An author can suggest different link colours so that they better suit the colour scheme of a site,



a:link {
background: ...;
color: ...;
}
a:visited {
background: ...;
color: ...;
}
a:hover {
background: ...;
color: ...;
}
but the :link and :visited pseudo-classes should always be different.


and I don't want my visitors to see the links like all the time.What you want and what your visitors might want can be very different things.

Mike

Wedgy
11-13-2005, 01:02 AM
LOL!

Yes. The theory is that (especially elderly and Alshemer's patients) people get disoriented and confused easily while navigating unfamiliar sites.

So the 'visited' feature is a key assisting element in avoiding revisiting places you've already gone, especially in regard to long, repetitious and tedious tasks like visiting and saving pages/articles to your hard drive.

On the other hand, the original designers of hypertext convention seem to make everyone gag who has an aesthetic sense not yet numbed by ads and popups.

So if there are no complex navigational needs, (i.e, your website/links are straightforward and few in number) you don't really need to conform to standards meant for the handicapped or fatigued/overworked. You can have a good looking page instead.

In some cases, over-doing the 'help the poor viewer' thing can be condescending, insulting, and annoying. Don't treat your visitors like they are children or idiots. Don't help them when they don't need it. If standards are too strict, you get everybody wearing the same clothes like in China, or a concentration camp. Don't over-conform, even on a hypertext basic when you don't need to.

Imagine all webpages looked like University websites on Linux servers with no graphics. (barf).

Twey
11-13-2005, 09:41 AM
Imagine all webpages looked like University websites on Linux servers with no graphics. (barf).Might not be as pretty, but it would make my life a heck of a lot easier :p
Such sites tend to not be about looking pretty; they expect the user to be there for one thing and one thing only: information. So, they strip away all the nonsense and give the user what he or she wants. What does being on a Linux server have to do with it? :confused:

As for that horrible blue-red-purple link-active-visited scheme, I agree with you that it's utterly horrible. Had I the chance, I would change it. However, it's something that users have come to expect, and therefore it's usually a good idea to adhere to it.

mwinter
11-13-2005, 12:24 PM
The theory is that (especially elderly and Alshemer's patients) people get disoriented and confused easily while navigating unfamiliar sites.It has nothing to do with the elderly or those with mental illness. It's a simple courteousy, similar to displaying breadcrumbs or any other navigation aid.

A simple example where it's useful is when one document (C) is linked from two others (A and B). From document A, the user might read C. Later, they read document B and encounter another link to C. It might not be obvious from the link text alone that they've already been there, but because the link is rendered distinctly from other unread links, it should be quite apparent. I know that I've benefited from this.


So if there are no complex navigational needs, [...] you don't really need to conform to standards meant for the handicapped or fatigued/overworked. You can have a good looking page instead.Rubbish. Exactly how does using a different rendering for visited links preclude the creation of an attractive site? Are you trying to imply that it's impossible to decide upon three foreground colours (body text, link text, visited links)?


In some cases, over-doing the 'help the poor viewer' thing can be condescending, insulting, and annoying.Of course, but this is far from that.



As for that horrible blue-red-purple link-active-visited scheme [...]But who said it had to be blue/red/purple? If that works with your design then it's preferable as they are recognised colours. But if it doesn't, then change it. Just make sure that any new scheme is used consistently throughout a site.

Mike

Twey
11-13-2005, 06:22 PM
... who said it had to be blue/red/purple?
I said "usually" :)

Wedgy
11-14-2005, 10:15 AM
You guys win again:

A simple example where it's useful is when one document (C) is linked from two others (A and B). From document A, the user might read C. Later, they read document B and encounter another link to C. It might not be obvious from the link text alone that they've already been there, but because the link is rendered distinctly from other unread links, it should be quite apparent. I know that I've benefited from this.
This is a great example, but I can't help suspecting that many a doubled link is not there for convenience but via sloppy outdated pages and links.


Exactly how does using a different rendering for visited links preclude the creation of an attractive site? Are you trying to imply that it's impossible to decide upon three foreground colours (body text, link text, visited links)?
Actually, if you're allowing me to choose text-colors, that's one step in the right direction. Some purists (even in books) are insisting that color conventions are adhered to. ..hold it: (barf). Ah. I'm okay now.

Twey
11-14-2005, 03:20 PM
I can't help suspecting that many a doubled link is not there for convenience but via sloppy outdated pages and links.Nonsense. Ever seen a breadcrumb trail? There's one at the top of this forum. Every single page on the forums links back to "Dynamic Drive Forums (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/index.php)."

Wedgy
11-17-2005, 01:04 PM
Ever seen a breadcrumb trail? Actually, I'll never know if I have seen one or not,
if no one ever provides a simple and scientific definition of one in this context.

Twey
11-17-2005, 03:28 PM
A breadcrumb trail is a series of links detailing the pages the user passed through to get to the current page, or the path down a hierarchy as laid out by the page designer(s).

mwinter
11-18-2005, 05:14 PM
[...] I can't help suspecting that many a doubled link is not there for convenience but via sloppy outdated pages and links.What about related pages? Several articles/products/whatever on a site might be related to each other, so why not link to them? If the user is interested in one, they might be interested in others.

Mike