E-mail List Archives
Thread: External Link Icons
Number of posts in this thread: 20 (In chronological order)
From: John E. Brandt
Date: Thu, Sep 27 2007 3:50PM
Subject: External Link Icons
No previous message | Next message →
I am not sure I have seen this issue discussed here, but perhaps it has and
someone can send me to an archive or other location.
In any case, what is the consensus of opinion on the use of, what I am
calling, External Link Icons? These are those tiny icons placed next to a
link on a website when the link goes to a URL that is "outside" of the
current web.
I noticed that WebAIM had used them extensively on many of their web pages
in the past, but seems to have scaled back their use. Here are some links
where the icons are used:
http://www.webaim.org/articles/process/evaluate.php
http://alastairc.ac/2007/08/comparing-tagged-pdfs-from-office-and-acrobat/
There was also a nice explanation on this page
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/hypertext/hypertext_links.php about some of
the background on using icons of various sorts. It seems that the current
version of JAWS alerts users to the fact that the link is to an external
site, but some older AT may not.
What is the current thinking on the use of this technique? I wouldn't mind
hearing both sides. And do people know of places where the use of these
icons are required by law/policy?
John E. Brandt
Augusta, Maine USA
www.jebswebs.com
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Sep 27 2007 4:20PM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
John E. Brandt wrote:
> I am not sure I have seen this issue discussed here, but perhaps it
> has and someone can send me to an archive or other location.
I'm pretty sure you can find past discussions on flagging external links, in
the list archive, and on other discussion forums.
> In any case, what is the consensus of opinion on the use of, what I am
> calling, External Link Icons?
Who cares about consensus? Consensus was once that everyone knew that the
earth is flat.
The crucial question is: Does it benefit the users, or the purpose of a
site, to indicate "external" links as external, for some definition of
"external"? The correct answer is: almost never. Such flagging is just a
fixed idea of designers and policy makers who don't understand that linking
between sites is just normal and part of the way the Web works.
> What is the current thinking on the use of this technique?
The first question should not be about the technique but about the very idea
of flagging links as external.
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Thu, Sep 27 2007 5:00PM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Our agency requires them by policy. The icon includes a link to the
lawyers' mandated disclaimer.
Cliff Tyllick
Web development coordinator
Agency Communications Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
512/239-4516
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 9/27/2007 4:45:28 PM >>>
I am not sure I have seen this issue discussed here, but perhaps it has
and
someone can send me to an archive or other location.
In any case, what is the consensus of opinion on the use of, what I am
calling, External Link Icons? These are those tiny icons placed next to
a
link on a website when the link goes to a URL that is "outside" of the
current web.
I noticed that WebAIM had used them extensively on many of their web
pages
in the past, but seems to have scaled back their use. Here are some
links
where the icons are used:
http://www.webaim.org/articles/process/evaluate.php
http://alastairc.ac/2007/08/comparing-tagged-pdfs-from-office-and-acrobat/
There was also a nice explanation on this page
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/hypertext/hypertext_links.php about
some of
the background on using icons of various sorts. It seems that the
current
version of JAWS alerts users to the fact that the link is to an
external
site, but some older AT may not.
What is the current thinking on the use of this technique? I wouldn't
mind
hearing both sides. And do people know of places where the use of
these
icons are required by law/policy?
John E. Brandt
Augusta, Maine USA
www.jebswebs.com
From: Rich Pedley
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 2:40AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
On 27/09/2007 23:12, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> John E. Brandt wrote:
>> In any case, what is the consensus of opinion on the use of, what
>> I am calling, External Link Icons?
>
> Who cares about consensus? Consensus was once that everyone knew
> that the earth is flat.
>
> The crucial question is: Does it benefit the users, or the purpose
> of a site, to indicate "external" links as external, for some
> definition of "external"? The correct answer is: almost never.
I'd have to disagree, but then surely your 'correct answer' is just in
your opinion?
As usual I don't think there have been extensive studies on the
subject, but there occasions when highlighting external links is
perhaps a good idea. Links in the middle of a sentence, where the user
expects to stay on the same site, could be dis-orientating to some. I
seem to recall a site designed nearly 7 years ago that had to be
careful where external links were placed because of this.
> Such flagging is just a fixed idea of designers and policy makers
> who don't understand that linking between sites is just normal and
> part of the way the Web works.
Linking between sites is normal yes, not sure I'd agree with the rest
of that though.
Rich
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 3:10AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Rich Pedley wrote:
>> The crucial question is: Does it benefit the users, or the purpose
>> of a site, to indicate "external" links as external, for some
>> definition of "external"? The correct answer is: almost never.
>
> I'd have to disagree, but then surely your 'correct answer' is just in
> your opinion?
I don't see the point in your use of the word "but"; surely if you disagree,
you do not accept the correct answer I gave.
> As usual I don't think there have been extensive studies on the
> subject, but there occasions when highlighting external links is
> perhaps a good idea.
The burden of proof lays on them who say that "highlighting" (an interesting
change of word!) is a good idea. It would be something that deviates from
normal presentation of content, so it needs justification.
> Links in the middle of a sentence, where the user
> expects to stay on the same site, could be dis-orientating to some.
Why would the user expect that? If you ask me, _my_ expectation is that such
a link refers to a page outside the site probably than links appearing in
menus, link lists, or at the end of a paragraph. If I think otherwise for a
particular link, it's because of its textual context and content (like "our
price list").
Links in the middle of a sentence are bad practice anyway, in _most_ cases.
They might be justifiable as links to extra information that is irrelevant
to most visitors, comparable to footnote references. And in such cases, it
does not matter whether it's "on the same site" (which is an author-centric
concept).
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 4:50AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
On 9/28/07, Rich Pedley < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> As usual I don't think there have been extensive studies on the
> subject, but there occasions when highlighting external links is
> perhaps a good idea. Links in the middle of a sentence, where the user
> expects to stay on the same site, could be dis-orientating to some. I
> seem to recall a site designed nearly 7 years ago that had to be
> careful where external links were placed because of this.
>
Links were designed to work in a site agnostic way. If the context
(and link text) does not set the expectations of the user I would
argue that this is an issue that shouldn't be solved by styling links.
And how would you style external links so that it is obvious for all
users?
It is easy to adopt a site centric view of how users interact with the
web. Typically users interact with a variety if web sites that work
differently. If you style your external links in a special way, some
other site won't. Users learn.
This is similar to providing a "print page" link instead of letting
users learn how to use the built-in print function in the web browser.
Regards,
Peter
From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 7:10AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
> In any case, what is the consensus of opinion on the use of,
> what I am calling, External Link Icons? These are those tiny
> icons placed next to a link on a website when the link goes
> to a URL that is "outside" of the current web.
I've had the opportunity to witness scores of users in usability tests over
the last three years. I have witnessed, on numerous occasions, participants
in the lab leave the site we were testing and be completely unaware that
they had done so. The two sites could look completely different and it
still wouldn't matter. Often, the test facilitator would have to interrupt
the participant (something you usually don't want to do) to try to get them
back on task. When they did so, they'd ask them "What site are you on now".
All of them thought they were on the original site.
This indicates to me that it is it is very important to make sure users know
when they are leaving your site. Jukka's assertion that people concerned
about marking external links "don't understand that linking between sites is
just normal and part of the way the Web works" misses the point. The issue
is that people who don't want to leave the site their on *do* leave the site
without knowing they have. I would agree completely with Jukka if users
knew they were leaving, but they just don't.
While I have had the opportunity to observe people failing to notice when
they leave a site, I've not yet witnessed what methods work to let them know
they've left. I've seen three methods used: an icon, a "speedbump" page, or
placing some part of the URL in the text to indicate that it is external.
As an example of the latter:
"WCAG and the Myth of Accessibility (http://www.juicystudio.com...): Kevin
Leitch explains why he feels that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
have failed in their mission to ensure that web content is accessible to
all."
The partial URL in this case indicates that the article is external. On the
surface, it may seem this is sufficient, but I have my doubts. During one
round of usability tests, there were similar cues that the sites were
external and participants failed to realize they had left.
In the case of the "speedbump" page: This is an interstitial page users are
taken to before actually going to the new destination. I've seen many
versions of this. In casual observation, users typically hate these things,
but they do work. So if this is a compliance issue (IIRC notifications of
3rd party links are required for NCUA compliance for credit unions, for
example), this may be a suitable solution.
And then of course is the external link icon. I think if we consider the
three components of usability: ease of use, ease of learning, and ease of
recall, a (well-designed) external link icon may be a good choice. Regarding
the initial ease of use, it really depends on the design of the icon. I'm
not sure it will mean a lot to most people. In fact, they may wonder what
the heck that weird icon is. On the upside, once they follow one of those
specially marked links, they will immediately learn and remember what that
link means.
I recommend trying it. Create an icon, create a mockup page which uses that
icon and do an impromptu usability test with friends, coworkers, or family
members. Make sure the people you use are not power users who have an
intimate knowledge of the web, but "regular" people.
Good luck!
Karl Groves
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 7:20AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
On 9/28/07, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> The two sites could look completely different and it
> still wouldn't matter.
> On the upside, once they follow one of those
> specially marked links, they will immediately learn and remember what that
> link means.
How can a tiny icon make the user aware of an external link when you
say that they don't get it even if the site looks completely
different?
How will a visually impaired user get the same information?
I guess the first step is to decide how important it is to make sure
the user is notified of a new site. A technical solution to the
problem (speed bump pages, icons etc) has to be compared to the
nuisance it may create for other users (extra time to navigate to the
page, risk of bookmarking the speed bump page, search engines etc).
I agree on your user centered approach. But, maybe this should be a
browser feature rather than everyone implementing their own particular
solution to the percieved problem?
Regards,
Peter
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 8:00AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Karl Groves wrote:
> I have witnessed, on numerous
> occasions, participants in the lab leave the site we were testing and
> be completely unaware that they had done so.
Such things do happen, though we cannot really know how often - we can
observe such situations but we don't know how representative they are.
Before asking whether external link icons would help in this problem, we
should ask whether it is a problem and whose problem it is. If the site
owner's purpose is to keep people in his site, then it's _his_ problem but
users - who may find answers to their problems in other sites via the
links - have no problem with this phenomenon as such.
> This indicates to me that it is it is very important to make sure
> users know when they are leaving your site.
Important to whom? If I find something I need by following a link to
example2.com at example.com, then "leaving a site" is not my problem. But
example.com can create a problem by making noises when I am about to leave
example.com. External link icons are not very serious noise (opening new
windows and showing transition pages or transition effects are serious
noise), but they are still noise.
> While I have had the opportunity to observe people failing to notice
> when they leave a site, I've not yet witnessed what methods work to
> let them know they've left.
The methods vary by the kind and mount of noise that they make. They may
also vary by their "effectiveness" in making the user understand that he is
changing site - but that is something that he normally need not know.
> In fact, they may wonder what the heck that weird icon is.
Indeed, especially since everyone and his brother use _different_ icons for
the purpose.
If it _really_ matters that some links are external, you normally can and
should _say_ that they are external and why that matters. For example, you
might want to say that a linked resource is not reliable and has not been
updated for years but it is still the best available resource on... whatever
it is about. Oops, I didn't say it was external. Should I? Why would _that_
matter, assuming that the visitor did not guess it?
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 8:30AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
>
> Karl Groves wrote:
>
> > I have witnessed, on numerous
> > occasions, participants in the lab leave the site we were
> testing and
> > be completely unaware that they had done so.
>
> Such things do happen, though we cannot really know how often
> - we can observe such situations but we don't know how
> representative they are.
We can assume with relative certainty that, provided a properly created set
of user personas that, if participants fitting those personas have problems
knowing they've left the site, others in that user population will have
similar problems. This is entirely the point of qualitative usability
studies! So your point that "we don't know how representative they are" is
wrong. We do know because the participants themselves are representative
samples of that site's user population.
And what's more, these observations I refer to were during tests of
different sites with different users doing different tasks. In other words,
it doesn't appear to matter who they are, most people have trouble
understanding when they've left a site. Does that mean *everyone* will
have a problem? Of course not. But enough people are likely to have this
problem that it is a very real concern.
> Before asking whether external link icons would help in this
> problem, we should ask whether it is a problem and whose
> problem it is. If the site owner's purpose is to keep people
> in his site, then it's _his_ problem but users - who may find
> answers to their problems in other sites via the links - have
> no problem with this phenomenon as such.
As I said in my last response, I agree with you on the premise that the site
owner being concerned about "losing visitors" is a silly concern. But I'm
coming from the view that the user themselves may not want to leave and may
inadvertently do so. This can lead to disorientation and may mean the user
will fail to perform the task they came to the site to perform in the first
place.
>
> If it _really_ matters that some links are external, you
> normally can and should _say_ that they are external and why
> that matters.
Placing this notice within the text is not reliable for links which appear
inline with other text. Now, on a links page or some other section clearly
delineated as a section of external resources? Absolutely.
It is important to keep in mind that those of us discussing this matter are
absolutely not representative of the "average user". Things that seem very
obvious to us simply aren't as obvious to most users. I have seen users
clicking links indiscriminately when lost on a site. It sometimes appears
that they're willing to click anything when they come to the conclusion that
the page they're on doesn't have the content they're after. And the more
they're lost, the more indiscriminately they click any blue, underlined
text. All the while, I'm thinking to myself "What the heck is this person
doing? That link won't take them anywhere near what they're looking for!"
but they do it anyway, which is why it is insufficient to merely state that
the link goes to an external resource.
Karl
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Sat, Sep 29 2007 5:30PM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Karl Groves wrote:
>> Karl Groves wrote:
>>
>>> I have witnessed, on numerous
>>> occasions, participants in the lab leave the site we were
>> testing and
>>> be completely unaware that they had done so.
>>
>> Such things do happen, though we cannot really know how often
>> - we can observe such situations but we don't know how
>> representative they are.
>
> We can assume with relative certainty that, provided a properly
> created set of user personas that, if participants fitting those
> personas have problems knowing they've left the site, others in that
> user population will have similar problems.
That assumption does not tell us how representative the situations are.
> This is entirely the
> point of qualitative usability studies!
If they are qualitative, then they don't (by definition) answer any "how
much" questions.
> So your point that "we don't
> know how representative they are" is wrong. We do know because the
> participants themselves are representative samples of that site's
> user population.
Representative samples? That would be rather extraordinary. Which _sampling_
method did you use? I'm afraid you are using just pseudoscientific jargon.
If you told _how many_ of the participants were unaware etc., then we might
try to deduce something quantitative on common sense basis, very roughly -
not statistically, since (to begin with) you have no representative sample
and even if it were, it would be far too small for any generalizability on
statistical grounds.
> But enough people are
> likely to have this problem that it is a very real concern.
You haven't given any quantitative information.
Moreover, you haven't proven that it is a problem at all.
> As I said in my last response, I agree with you on the premise that
> the site owner being concerned about "losing visitors" is a silly
> concern.
Yes, but that's the _real_ reason behind the desire to put External Link
Icons around.
> But I'm coming from the view that the user themselves may
> not want to leave and may inadvertently do so.
"May" is the operative word. That's just speculation for now. Besides, if
that _is_ a problem, then is there any reason to think that External Link
Icons would address it? If the problem is in the way of using the Web, then
the solution is to teach those people use it better, e.g. to find out ways
to recognize _in general_ where they are going etc.
>> If it _really_ matters that some links are external, you
>> normally can and should _say_ that they are external and why
>> that matters.
>
> Placing this notice within the text is not reliable for links which
> appear inline with other text.
Why wouldn't it be? If people miss a normal textual explanation, will they
even understand link texts? If I say
"There are more details on this in the Wikipedia article <a ...>...</a>,
which looked relatively accurate when checked on ... (but may have changed
of course)."
then I've expressed what needs to be said.
> I have seen users clicking links indiscriminately when lost
> on a site.
Would they be helped if some links had cryptic icons associated with them,
different in different sites?
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Sun, Sep 30 2007 5:30PM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Karl Groves wrote:
> I've had the opportunity to witness scores of users in usability tests over
> the last three years. I have witnessed, on numerous occasions, participants
> in the lab leave the site we were testing and be completely unaware that
> they had done so.
Me to. Although it varies by site as some link more than others, and
design has an effect as well, it is definitely a significant number of
people. It has never been the main focus of a study, but on sites
which link elsewhere (in what people here would consider a normal
fashion), between 1/3 and 2/3rds of the general public would not
realise (immediately at least) that they had left.
It's not a quantitative measure by any means, but it is so common that
I would put a hefty bet on the outcome of such a study (like a house).
Asking for numbers is also missing the point somewhat, surely you
would want people to be making informed choices? I would put it in the
same category of priority as good design making site's easier to read.
Peter Krantz wrote:
> How can a tiny icon make the user aware of an external link when you
> say that they don't get it even if the site looks completely
> different?
They may not, but it's a balance of annoying people vs informing them
(from interstitials, through not linking in the content area at all,
through icons, to nothing). With the icon approach, adding a title as
another hint can help.
> How will a visually impaired user get the same information?
You could add an alt text (assuming the icon is a foreground image),
but I would be cautious. I tested this briefly in preparation for an
article on the topic
(http://alastairc.ac/2007/08/usability-enhancements-with-javascript/),
and if it's used too much it can really get in the way of reading when
using a screen reader.
Although I obviously favour the technique, it certainly shouldn't be
mandated, it is very much dependant on the style and type of site.
Regarding it possibly being a browser issue, I used to use a client
side script to identify PDF links. (This was due to a few sites I had
to use driving me up the wall with the number of PDFs). However,
having used client-side and site-based scripts, the site-based ones
tend to work better as they are easier to fit to the site design wise,
and it's easier to restrict them to the relevant parts of the page,
such as the content area.
-Alastair
From: Hausler,Jesse
Date: Mon, Oct 01 2007 5:50PM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Many usability studies, especially those using the Think Aloud protocol, are by method observational studies. Testers observe users completing a list of tasks and (if necessary) prompt them to speak their thoughts out-loud. If a user becomes stuck, testers watch the users attempt to become unstuck. Actions, words, tone, and mood are then analyzed. User patterns and points of difficulty are noted. Design changes are made and the process repeats.
In a perfect usability world, users will always know where they are within a site or system, where they need to go to accomplish their task, and how to get there. The steps to complete the task will make sense cognitively, and they will receive proper feedback after the task is complete. If they do encounter error, which they shouldn't, they will be able to easily back out of the error, or undo the parts that did not go properly.
When this dream scenario does not play out properly it always becomes the users "problem", since they are the ones unable to complete their given task. The "burden" is on the designer to ensure this does not happen. A developer who assumes inline text stating a link will go external and places this burden on the user, ignores one of the main web usability heuristics...
"Users Don't Read"
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html
The question posed by Mr. Groves' study was, "Which of these three methods will users best recognize for encountering an external link?" It appears that the "speedbump" page yielded the best results given his sample. The questions "Why do users would want to know that they are leaving a site?", or "Why do site owners want users to stay on their site?", were not asked and are not being asked.
As far as what makes a sample representative, the rules in Usability testing are different from standard empirical studies. Jakob Nielson wrote in 1993 that the magic number for usability testing was 5 users. This was mainly due to the need to save costs for companies who were weary of usability studies. Also noted is that returns diminish at about 10 users.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
Laurie Faulker wrote in 2004 that the number should be 15. With ten more users, you are less likely to miss usability defects in a given round of testing.
PDF: http://www.geocities.com/faulknerusability/Faulkner_BRMIC_Vol35.pdf
A good analysis of both thoughts can be found here:
http://experiencedynamics.blogs.com/site_search_usability/2005/01/latest_research.html
The best method might be a combination of sorts. Given the resources, I would test using an external link icon along with a speedbump page. Not that it was mentioned, but I would recommend against a timer on the speedbump page. Upon reaching the speedbump, If the user does not want to leave the site, the time may not give them enough time to undo their previous move.
Jesse Hausler
Assistive Technology Resource Center
Colorado State University
From: J M
Date: Tue, Oct 02 2007 9:50AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Hausler,Jesse wrote:
The best method might be a combination of sorts. Given the resources, I would test using an external link icon along with a speedbump page. Not that it was mentioned, but I would recommend against a timer on the speedbump page. Upon reaching the speedbump, If the user does not want to leave the site, the time may not give them enough time to undo their previous move.
Jesse Hausler
Assistive Technology Resource Center
Colorado State University
Interesting topic...
I have found problems with the "speedbump page" usage and with WCAG, Priority 2. Automatically redirecting after a few seconds on the speedbump page goes against WCAG compliance.
WCAG 1.0 specifies, "Until user agents provide the ability to stop auto-redirect, do not use markup to redirect pages automatically"... for obvious cognitive and reading level reasoning, primarily.
I found that it is extremely inconvenient and goes against usability principles to require a manual click again to confirm or to continue to a link internally or external. More importantly, one problem of using such technique is that it complicates administration and validating of links. Links will falsely validate because the "speedbump" page is valid, however the actual link (off site) may not be a valid link. Progressive link validation usually references the "speedbump" page as the broken link source and not the actual broken markup page, making link validation extremely difficult to resolve.
On the positive side the speedbump is a central location to provide policy statements and access to required tools and viewers for any/all such required viewer (PDF viewer & online tools, Powerpoint viewer, etc.), if necessary.
For regular users of such sites this becomes a time consuming hindrance or un-necessary hoops to maneuver through.
The "speedbump" or Good-bye (as I call it) techniques may resolve some problems but I found it creates others as well.
For what ever it's worth here's a speedbump or good-bye example test page demonstrating a perl scipt that evaluates links and can display a custom speedbump/good-bye message dependent on the link extension identifier for concept demonstration purposes (e.g. .pdf, .mov, doc, ppt.): http://www.researchutilization.org/temp/testgb.html
Regards,
John Middleton
Web Administrator
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Tue, Oct 02 2007 4:00PM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
*Sent this reply to Karl only, rather than to the list, last week. I
hope it's still relevant:*
Karl, thanks for sharing your experience and insight. Based on user
studies, I've been won over to the idea that we need "Exit" markers on
our site. Many of our users *want* to stay on our site because we're a
regulatory agency, and they want to know they're getting the information
straight from us. When the relevant information is not ours to maintain,
they appreciate knowing in advance that they are leaving our site.
We first started this because attorneys and managers were concerned
that folks would think we endorsed the full content of any site we link
to. To appease that concern, we added a small gif saying "Exit" after
each off-site link. (If all links on a page exit our site, there might
be just one "Exit" gif at the top of the page.) The "Exit" gif has an
appropriate alt tag and links to a disclaimer
(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/help/policies/linking_policy.html). We
thought about using a transition page instead, but decided against it.
In our judgment, it would be a speedbump between the user and the
information they need.
The attorneys and managers are comfortable with the arrangement we
adopted, and, as we have done more usability studies, we have found that
even novices understand and appreciate the "Exit" gifs. In fact, the
only complaint we now get is from people who are upset that they *have*
to leave our site to get information *from another agency*---"Why don't
you have it, too?" Go figure.
Jukka, I'm not sure how these gifs could be construed as an effort to
keep people on our site. Much like signs on a highway, they simply let
folks know when the environment is about to change. Whether they take
this exit is purely up to them.
By the way, I am not holding our site up as a paragon of either
accessibility or usability. We are working to improve it, and I would
appreciate constructuve criticism. But as for the "Exit" gifs, the
people who use our site most tell us that they are helpful and
appreciated. If you're like us, think about whether they would make
sense on your site, too.
From: tedd
Date: Wed, Oct 03 2007 6:20AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
At 4:50 PM -0500 10/2/07, Cliff Tyllick wrote:
>*Sent this reply to Karl only, rather than to the list, last week. I
>hope it's still relevant:*
-snip-
Cliff:
My opinion -- it looks like a reasonable solution to the problem described.
Question: What's with this?
<html xmlns:ui="http://www.arsdigita.com/ui/1.0"
xmlns:bebop="http://www.arsdigita.com/bebop/1.0" lang="en">
What does that have to do with your site?
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Wed, Oct 03 2007 9:50AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
Tedd, thanks for the feedback. This:
<html xmlns:ui="http://www.arsdigita.com/ui/1.0"
xmlns:bebop="http://www.arsdigita.com/bebop/1.0" lang="en">
is a relic from work done by one of our past contractors. I'm a little
fuzzy on why it can't be removed easily. The answer I get is "bigger
problems to solve first."
Can you tell me whether it causes any accessibility problems? (I'm
still trying to get speakers for my computer, so I have no way of being
sure how screen readers interact with that code.)
Cliff
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 10/3/2007 7:15 AM >>>
At 4:50 PM -0500 10/2/07, Cliff Tyllick wrote:
>*Sent this reply to Karl only, rather than to the list, last week. I
>hope it's still relevant:*
-snip-
Cliff:
My opinion -- it looks like a reasonable solution to the problem
described.
Question: What's with this?
<html xmlns:ui="http://www.arsdigita.com/ui/1.0"
xmlns:bebop="http://www.arsdigita.com/bebop/1.0" lang="en">
What does that have to do with your site?
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Wed, Oct 03 2007 12:00PM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
On 10/3/07, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> <html xmlns:ui="http://www.arsdigita.com/ui/1.0"
> xmlns:bebop="http://www.arsdigita.com/bebop/1.0" lang="en">
>
> is a relic from work done by one of our past contractors. I'm a little
> fuzzy on why it can't be removed easily. The answer I get is "bigger
> problems to solve first."
>
The page you linked to is a HTML 4.01 page in which XML namespaces
have no meaning. In fact xmlns is an invalid attribute in this context
as you can see if you run it through the W3C validator.
Removing or keeping the xmlns attributes has no impact on accessibility at all.
Regards,
Peter
From: tedd
Date: Thu, Oct 04 2007 10:10AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | Next message →
At 10:49 AM -0500 10/3/07, Cliff Tyllick wrote:
>Can you tell me whether it causes any accessibility problems? (I'm
>still trying to get speakers for my computer, so I have no way of being
>sure how screen readers interact with that code.)
>
>Cliff
Cliff:
I can't imagine that the code would cause accessibility problems
(present or absent), but it does cause your site to fail w3c
validation.
From what I see, it's just there to provide a link back
arsfdigital.com -- but beyond that, I doubt there's any function. I
would remove it.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Thu, Oct 04 2007 10:30AM
Subject: Re: External Link Icons
← Previous message | No next message
Thanks for the feedback! On consulting with other staff, I have found
that we will just have to leave it there until we completely change our
site. Which can't happen soon enough to suit me.
Glad to hear it doesn't interfere with accessibility. And it's not the
only w3c issue that won't be addressed until we overhaul it all. (Groan)
As I said, it can't happen soon enough.
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 10/4/2007 11:07 AM >>>
At 10:49 AM -0500 10/3/07, Cliff Tyllick wrote:
>Can you tell me whether it causes any accessibility problems? (I'm
>still trying to get speakers for my computer, so I have no way of
being
>sure how screen readers interact with that code.)
>
>Cliff
Cliff:
I can't imagine that the code would cause accessibility problems
(present or absent), but it does cause your site to fail w3c
validation.
>From what I see, it's just there to provide a link back
arsfdigital.com -- but beyond that, I doubt there's any function. I
would remove it.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com