E-mail List Archives
Thread: Click Here.
Number of posts in this thread: 10 (In chronological order)
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 11:15AM
Subject: Click Here.
No previous message | Next message →
On 2/16/06, ben morrison < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Another example is people who have been convinced that "click here" is
> > somehow destructive to the web. No, that's slang again, and yes, we
> > know full well that not all everyone uses a mouse -- but how many
> > blind, keyboard-using web users have actually sat there and gone "gosh
> > it says to click here, but I can't click, WHAT DO I DO??"
> There is a very good reason for not using "click here" as link text -
> make sure that links make sense when read out of context.
Wrong. That's an argument against using "click here" as the only link
text, but even still it's a poor argument.
> So if i was using a screenreader and asked for all the links on a page
> what is more helpful:
This is a faulty assumption. Links in web pages aren't meant to be
yanked out of context. It's hypertext, and it's structured context
for a reason. Removing that context is harmful, and screenreaders
which do this are harmful, long-term, to the accessibility of the web.
It makes no sense at all to demand that web pages make sense when
individual links are read out with all structure stripped.
And, yes, there are many cases in which "click here" alone is just
silly, but it's not a huge accessibility problem, and yet I've been
amazed how many web accessibility folks seem to think that, oh my
gosh, we'd better fix that right away, it's a major error.
It's not. It's insignificant if someone uses the terminology "click
here" versus "follow this link."
Compare/contrast:
1. click here for "alt text,"
2. here for "alt tag",
3. and here for "alt attribute."
versus
1. follow this link for "alt text",
2. this link for "alt tag",
3. and this link for "alt attribute."
They're all identical, but you'll find people who would swear up and
down that "click here" somehow ruined everything, as if blind folks
using the web would have no idea what this alien "click" concept could
possibly ever mean.
--Kynn
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 11:45AM
Subject: Re: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 2/16/06, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I can't say that I agree with you here Ken.
I prefer "Kynn," by the way. If you're using a screenreader it may
sound subtly different -- K y n n.
> When a sited person visits a
> page looking for a link to take him or her to more information about
> something that he or she knows is mentioned within a page, they will
> frequently do this by visually scanning the links on the page. (Gaining
> nothing from context)
This is an incorrect oversimplification of how sighted users approach
web pages. It's completely untrue that they gain nothing from
context. In fact, it is completely impossible -- visual users always
use the context when locating links.
For example, I am reading this in google mail. I know where to find
the "reply" and "forward" links, because of where they are visually
located on the page. That's because it's where I expect it to be,
based on the layout of the page.
There is also, somewhere, a link called "preview invite" and another
called "create a filter." I had no idea those were there until I
specifically went hunting. If you asked me, without looking at the
screen, to name the links on the page, I wouldn't have found those.
Why? Because they're out of the way, they're hidden over THERE and up
there THERE, where I can't see them because I don't look.
There's also a pair of links at the bottom which say:
Get the Gmail Notifier for the Mac. Learn more.
"Gmail Notifier for the Mac" is one link. "Learn more" is another.
Yes, "Learn More" doesn't make sense out of context, given that it
could be about anything on the page. There are other "Learn more"
links on the page. But it's also presented in logical, structured
order, and if I broke that order, it would fail to work as well.
(Note: I'm not holding up Gmail as an example of accessible design,
but rather using it to illustrate how visually dependent users are
forced to process information, due to our dependency.)
> The link list feature of screen readers allows
> blind users to gain that same functionality.
No, it's a different kind of functionality.
> Well chosen link text helps
> both the sited and unsited alike in this situation. Example: I have
> arrived on a page promoting an event that I would like to attend. I want
> to purchase tickets to the event but don't want to bother reading all
> about the event, I already know I want to go. If the page has 30 links
> that say nothing but "Click Here" with the contextual phrase that tells me
> where I am going either before or after "Click Here" it takes me a lot
> longer to find the link to the tickets visually, and I cannot do it
> without listening through the page using a screen reader. If instead
> there is a link that says "Purchase Tickets" I can get my tickets quickly
> whether I am scanning visually or using a link list on a screen reader.
> Of course the link text could be "Click Here to Buy Tickets" but why
> bother with all the extra words.
Because "click here to buy tickets" has increased usability for
everyone, actually.
I also think you're not reading carefully what I am saying. You
probably should, because it is more complex than what people are
usually taught about web accessibility, which is simplifications such
as "click here is bad!"
"Click here" is neither good nor bad. And trying to argue that it's
necessarily bad because some people intentionally break the structure
of structured markup and then attempt to use a page is a poor, poor
argument.
--Kynn
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:00PM
Subject: RE: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
> Not necessarily. Sometimes they they're helpful and increase
> the usability of a page.
They're always redundant. What else do you do to a link besides
click/follow it online? The very premise of html is the HYPERTEXT part
of it. Links are what make the web what it is.
> Most links aren't all that explicit about what they do.
That's exactly why 'click here' is bad practice.
-Darrel
From: Dagmar Noll
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: Re: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
>When a sited person visits a
> page looking for a link to take him or her to more information about
> something that he or she knows is mentioned within a page, they will
> frequently do this by visually scanning the links on the page. (Gaining
> nothing from context)
I did that just yesterday. I was on a site that was basically directing
me to other sites that had the potential to provide me with the detailed
information I was looking for. What was emphasized on the page (and thus
drew my eyes) were the links. Unfortunately, all of the links said
"Click Here". Visually scanning that page for what I was looking for
felt very clunky and counter-intuitive.
Dagmar
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 1:40PM
Subject: Re: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 2/16/06, Dagmar Noll < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I did that just yesterday. I was on a site that was basically directing
> me to other sites that had the potential to provide me with the detailed
> information I was looking for. What was emphasized on the page (and thus
> drew my eyes) were the links. Unfortunately, all of the links said
> "Click Here". Visually scanning that page for what I was looking for
> felt very clunky and counter-intuitive.
Except, not all of the links said "click here." There were navigation
links all over that page which said plenty of things besides "click
here."
--Kynn
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 2:30PM
Subject: Re: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 2/16/06, Austin, Darrel < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > It's not. It's insignificant if someone uses the terminology
> > "click here" versus "follow this link."
>
> Yes. Both are bad practice. Both from an accessibility standpoint and
> just in the fact that they are completely rudundant in the context of
> the web.
Not necessarily. Sometimes they they're helpful and increase the
usability of a page.
Most links aren't all that explicit about what they do. Many times it
actually is helpful to specify what a link is all about. And hiding
it in title attributes isn't always the best.
--Kynn
From: mmoore@knowbility.org
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 2:50PM
Subject: Re: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
> On 2/16/06, ben morrison < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> On 2/16/06, Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Wrong. That's an argument against using "click here" as the only link
> text, but even still it's a poor argument.
>
>> So if i was using a screenreader and asked for all the links on a page
>> what is more helpful:
>
> This is a faulty assumption. Links in web pages aren't meant to be
> yanked out of context. It's hypertext, and it's structured context
> for a reason. Removing that context is harmful, and screenreaders
> which do this are harmful, long-term, to the accessibility of the web.
>
> It makes no sense at all to demand that web pages make sense when
> individual links are read out with all structure stripped.
>
I can't say that I agree with you here Ken. When a sited person visits a
page looking for a link to take him or her to more information about
something that he or she knows is mentioned within a page, they will
frequently do this by visually scanning the links on the page. (Gaining
nothing from context) The link list feature of screen readers allows
blind users to gain that same functionality. Well chosen link text helps
both the sited and unsited alike in this situation. Example: I have
arrived on a page promoting an event that I would like to attend. I want
to purchase tickets to the event but don't want to bother reading all
about the event, I already know I want to go. If the page has 30 links
that say nothing but "Click Here" with the contextual phrase that tells me
where I am going either before or after "Click Here" it takes me a lot
longer to find the link to the tickets visually, and I cannot do it
without listening through the page using a screen reader. If instead
there is a link that says "Purchase Tickets" I can get my tickets quickly
whether I am scanning visually or using a link list on a screen reader.
Of course the link text could be "Click Here to Buy Tickets" but why
bother with all the extra words.
Mike
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 3:20PM
Subject: RE: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
> It's not. It's insignificant if someone uses the terminology
> "click here" versus "follow this link."
Yes. Both are bad practice. Both from an accessibility standpoint and
just in the fact that they are completely rudundant in the context of
the web.
-Darrel
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 4:20PM
Subject: Re: Click Here.
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> Most links aren't all that explicit about what they do.
And that's fine, because all links do the same thing, namely nothing.
Links are data (indicating relationships), not commands or programs.
> Many times it
> actually is helpful to specify what a link is all about.
The link text is supposed to tell that, with the textual content giving
additional information. But it's not about what a link _does_. It's about
the resource that the link points to, especially in the context of the
referring document.
> And hiding
> it in title attributes isn't always the best.
The title attribute was originally a useful idea, but it has largely been
spoiled by abuse. The title attribute is never the best way to specify
what a link is all about.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 4:50PM
Subject: Re: Click Here.
← Previous message | No next message
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>> So if i was using a screenreader and asked for all the links on a page
>> what is more helpful:
>
> This is a faulty assumption. Links in web pages aren't meant to be
> yanked out of context.
You might think so, but in fact they _are_ yanked out of context, just as
normal text is. Search engines do it all the time. People do it all the
time.
> It's hypertext,
Hypertext is text that contains links. There's not much magic in it, and
it's not an ideology. In the early days of the web, there were many people
who exaggerated the use of links - even saying that every word should be a
link (to a dictionary entry if nothing else). Experience has shown that it
is better to use links mostly as organized into link lists or as
references used sparingly e.g. at the end of a document, a section, or
perhaps a paragraph. Pure inline links tend to make texts harder to read,
and they make many people nervous, since they don't know whether they
should follow every link or not. They are not comfortable in speech
browsing either. When you hear a link in the midst of a statement, you
have little way of knowing whether you should follow it or not, and
following it later is not convenient. It's better to have things read
first as text without links, then perhaps followed by a statement like
"The document [link] foobar contains more detailed information about
[link] zip and [link] zap."
> and it's structured context for a reason.
Structured context? Structure and context are two different things.
Anyway, for _understandability_ especially to people with cognitive
disabilities, the text should be as readable as possible "out of context"
too. If the reader has to remember much of the context, many people simply
won't, even if they have no serious _intellectual_ difficulties in
understanding the content.
Aiming at link texts that are understandable out of context helps to make
the entire text more understandable.
> And, yes, there are many cases in which "click here" alone is just
> silly, but it's not a huge accessibility problem, and yet I've been
> amazed how many web accessibility folks seem to think that, oh my
> gosh, we'd better fix that right away, it's a major error.
It's a common mistake that is easy to fix, once people understand the
issue. This is a good reason to keep reminding of it - which is a
relatively new message being carried out. Actually I had never seen a
document summarizing the basic arguments against "Click here", so I
wrote one: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/click.html
> They're all identical, but you'll find people who would swear up and
> down that "click here" somehow ruined everything, as if blind folks
> using the web would have no idea what this alien "click" concept could
> possibly ever mean.
When a blind person starts using the web, he may or may not have an idea
of what "click" means. It is still an unnecessarily alienating expression.
Besides, it gives misleading information to _everyone_. On all browsers I
have used, clicking on a link is (at most) _one_ way of following a link,
and other methods can be more suitable in particular contexts. Many people
are ignorant of the other methods, and "click here" helps in keeping them
ignorant.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/