Rene Rivera wrote:
Marcin Kalicinski wrote:
I know gazillion words have been said on the looks of the new webpage, but still I want to add my 2 pennies. Briefly, I think that links in the text look very ugly and... amateurish?
OK. How is it ugly? How is it amateurish?
IMHO, it isn't amateurish at all.
If you insist on having them underlined I suggest you stick with more standard look, such as on OpenOffice.org webpage (and many others). This looks much more professional.
OpenOffice.org doesn't have underlines on links, from my POV.
That's strange. They get displayed underlined here.
Additionally, I'd rather have links in boxes on the right have the same style as links in the text.
Why?
I understand that request. It's the same functionality (a link to some other page). Why are there different visual representations for the same functionality? Without relying on mouse-over stuff, it's non-obvious that the box contents are links. In fact, I would have thought that "Support" is a link because it's underlined. However, it is not. Why do the titles in the Box not only have underlines but also this mouse-over stuff? They are not links, so there's no need to help the user aim at the correct spot. Maybe it would be a good idea to actually make them links. Why does the ">>" icon indicate a link in the boxes, but not in the main part of the page? I usually have loading of pictures turned off (which is why I didn't recognize those inconsistencies earlier). Without the ">>", there's no indication that the box contents are links. I understand that a box contains an index for a different page and I like the idea of grouping them. However, I suggest to add some more obvious indication that the index items are links (maybe underlining in some light color, maybe underlining only on mouse-over). On terminal based browsers, these problems don't seem to exist. All links get displayed consistently. Regards, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com