Bite me

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote

Spartanicus wrote:

Site: http://www.pan-europe.utvinternet.ie/

Not bad. A few usability issues though...

People generally expect the top-left corner logo to be a clickable link to
the site home page.

This is a myth -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...s/?article=usr



--

Karl Groves
http://www.karlcore.com

Neal wrote:

Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote:

From http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html:
| Place your name and logo on every page and make the logo a link to the
| home page (except on the home page itself, where the logo should not be
| a link: never have a link that points right back to the current page).

Look at the logo on http://www.opro.org - if this is made a link, in order
to maintain the desired look, the border must be removed. And removing the
border makes it a rather poor link.

Better to make it a poor link than to make it not a link at all.

And your example does not make the bg image clickable, it makes the
whitespace clickable. How is this useful on a browser with no CSS access?

Apologies, I only posted the basic code. In reality you'd probably want to
use something like:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/logolink

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Spartanicus wrote:

That said, the case for not including site branding on all pages
is imo the stronger one, in the visual domain a logo is easily ignored,
in other domains (aural, sensory) it's a real nuisance to have a site's
branding repeated on every page.

alt=""

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Karl Core wrote:

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote in message
newsan.2004.02.23.18.39.24.809005 (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk...
Spartanicus wrote:

Site: http://www.pan-europe.utvinternet.ie/

Not bad. A few usability issues though...

People generally expect the top-left corner logo to be a clickable link to
the site home page.

This is a myth -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...s/?article=usr

The page you referenced says that about 33% of people expect the logo to
be a clickable link to the home page. So, if it's not, then you're
confusing 33% of your visitors.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

While sitting in a puddle Toby A Inkster scribbled in the mud:

Apologies, I only posted the basic code. In reality you'd probably
want to use something like:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/logolink

Ok, that's weird in IE. On hover the image goes away

--
Duende

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote

Karl Core wrote:

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote in message
newsan.2004.02.23.18.39.24.809005 (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk...
Spartanicus wrote:

Site: http://www.pan-europe.utvinternet.ie/

Not bad. A few usability issues though...

People generally expect the top-left corner logo to be a clickable link
to
the site home page.

This is a myth -

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...s/?article=usr

The page you referenced says that about 33% of people expect the logo to
be a clickable link to the home page. So, if it's not, then you're
confusing 33% of your visitors.

33% != 100%
Your statement was "people generally expect", which seems to imply that more
than 33% expect it.

Don't get me wrong. I link the logo as well, but generally as a redundant
link, not one that replaces a well labeled "Home" link. I just wanted to
point out that it isn't as important as many people say.


--

Karl Groves
http://www.karlcore.com

Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote:

That said, the case for not including site branding on all pages
is imo the stronger one, in the visual domain a logo is easily ignored,
in other domains (aural, sensory) it's a real nuisance to have a site's
branding repeated on every page.

alt=""

Theoretically, try surfing the wild web with an aural browser and you'll
discover that ignoring images with no alt content causes a lot of extra
hassle, thus they are identified most of the time by aural UA's.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus wrote:

Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote:

That said, the case for not including site branding on all pages
is imo the stronger one, in the visual domain a logo is easily ignored,
in other domains (aural, sensory) it's a real nuisance to have a site's
branding repeated on every page.

alt=""

Theoretically, try surfing the wild web with an aural browser and you'll
discover that ignoring images with no alt content causes a lot of extra
hassle, thus they are identified most of the time by aural UA's.

alt="&nbsp;"

?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote:

Theoretically, try surfing the wild web with an aural browser and you'll
discover that ignoring images with no alt content causes a lot of extra
hassle, thus they are identified most of the time by aural UA's.

alt="&nbsp;"

What do you think that should do, and why do you think it relates to the
issue I described?

--
Spartanicus

In article
<j5pj30530oaj07al5ft7cese16jusvhc1e (AT) news (DOT) spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>,
Spartanicus <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote:

Site: http://www.pan-europe.utvinternet.ie/
CSS: http://www.pan-europe.utvinternet.ie/css/one.css
and http://www.pan-europe.utvinternet.ie/css/two.css

The stylesheet doesn't read on Mac IE5 on OS9.1. I get an unstyled site.
Looks great on Mozilla 1.2.1. Even at 640x480. Looks good in MacLynx too.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>