Beth Jacobson wrote:
I'm convinced the usability issue is big enough to justify the change.
Usability is *very* subjective aspect. Your version is for you more usable. But for others, like the visually impaired it's likely not more usable, as Daniel pointed out. Thanks Daniel for that link, I've looked for a long time for a way to test color blindness usability.
Black text with blue underline just doesn't say "link", and when I first saw the page I didn't even realize the menus were menus.
Yet, link underlines are the default for many browsers and hence mean 'link' to much of the web population.
I assumed that they were some sort of informational text.
Very likely because of your preference for color indicators.
I'm hoping my changes have made these things a lot clearer without seriously harming the aesthetics.
I'm fairly picky about typography and visual composition; my friends would say that's an understatement. So from my POV it's not an improvement. I used to prefer colored links as you have them but for the last few years I've realized that the colors break up the visual structure of text more than I can tolerate. This change for me is likely because of the increased amount of online reading, as opposed to book reading, that I currently engage in. Hence my conclusion has been that for text heavy content colored links are intrusive to reading and comprehension. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org