I've checked this across six different displays to be sure it's not just hardware - so that leaves my eyes as a possible culprit ;-)
It's super hard to distinguish links from plain text in forum posts now. The blue seems to be just barely different from the black text.
This is a problem to the point that I didn't even realize a post had links until I accidentally clicked one.
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Links extremely hard to see in current style
I agree. Also related, the difference between the "you have viewed this" background color of a post (particularly on the "Latest Content" list) and the "this post has been unapproved or is pending moderator review" is hard for me to see. The latter used to have a significantly brighter red tint to it.
The blue seems to be just barely different from the black text.
FWIW I've thought the same even before the design switch. Before doing a color change let's try bolding the links and see how that works - I've tested this independently and really like how they stand out more.
Not everyone will agree, so anyone who falls in that category should feel free to complain and offer color alternatives that stick within the general color scheme.
Also related, the difference between the "you have viewed this" background color of a post (particularly on the "Latest Content" list) and the "this post has been unapproved or is pending moderator review" is hard for me to see.
Better?
Any reason to not use the default of underlining links? I know in recent years it has been vogue to use color only, but the underline is both historically the correct indicator and a clear visual mark that does not depend on color sensitivity.
Any reason to not use the default of underlining links? I know in recent years it has been vogue to use color only, but the underline is both historically the correct indicator and a clear visual mark that does not depend on color sensitivity.
We've never used underlined links, so it's more for that reason than anything else. The only time I can think we've had underline style is one ad campaign we ran that used double-underline and a few style experiments we messed with.
That's okay that we haven't been using it, I'm just suggesting it for the future. Underlined links has been the web standard since the very beginning of the Web with Tim Berners-Lee's first program, and they solve the issue of readability.
Like the others, I have a difficult time seeing text links with the new style. I just didn't want to be the one to bring it up.
It now looks like links are bold, which looks better in cases where the text wasn't already bold.
/edit: also it looks like the editor is currently underlining links. Also, here is a manually underlined link for comparison which (to me) looks more link-ish.
+1 for underlining being the indicator for links since nineteen ninety whatever. Otherwise, yeah the current blue is too close to the black default text to actually be easily distinguished. Links do currently lack affordance.
Another option though is adding a CSS rule that shows a symbol at the end of the link, such as ("two overlapping squares") ?, or ("link") , or an image of an up-and-right arrow, indicating it's going to open something.
[edit] The forum software deletes the unicode 'link' symbol :lol:
Another option though is adding a CSS rule that shows a symbol at the end of the link, such as ("two overlapping squares") ?, or ("link") , or an image of an up-and-right arrow, indicating it's going to open something.
[edit] The forum software deletes the unicode 'link' symbol :lol:
It now looks like links are bold, which looks better in cases where the text wasn't already bold.
It's easier to distinguish the blue from the black in bold at least.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
