Please, stop using "click here" when writing.

[Christopher Dean]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

This has been a long time coming. It’s old, but much of it still applies, and I am truly amazed at how people are still making the same mistakes we made a decade ago. Taken from Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, October 3, 2005: Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005.

————
2. Non-Standard Links Following are the five main guidelines for links:

• Make obvious what’s clickable: for text links, use colored, underlined text (and don't underline non-link text).

• Differentiate visited and unvisited links.

• Explain what users will find at the other end of the link, and include some of the key information-carrying terms in the anchor text itself to enhance scannability and search engine optimization (SEO). Don’t use “click here” or other non-descriptive link text.

• Avoid JavaScript or other fancy techniques that break standard interaction techniques for dealing with links.

In particular, don’t open pages in new windows (except for PDF files and such). Links are the Web's number one interaction element. Violating common expectations for how links work is a sure way to confuse and delay users, and might prevent them from being able to use your site.
————

For example, instead of linking “I just came across an interesting Kickstarter project. For more information, click here” (which provides the user with no information as to where they are going to end up without additionally reading the words around the ambiguous word “here,” try:

I was doing a bit of reading, and I came across an interesting Kickstarter project: Gremolata & Cancellaresca Milanese. A graphic design project in new York, NY, by Russell Maret.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
~ George Santayana. The Life of Reason.

[aluminum]

The people that built our intranet decided to purposefully break every one of those rules, it seems. Sigh.

[quadibloc]

Because my web site can (or, at least, could at one time) use frames if the user chooses, as a courtesy, all external site links open in a new window, as some site admins object to their sites being part of a frame on someone else's site.

[Christopher Dean]

I like to say “welcome to the ‘90s folks!” when I am talking to clients/students about this and other basic principles. It often gets a laugh and really helps reinforce how completely ignorant we are.

[Nick Shinn]

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Hence rock radio playing Jimi, Floyd and Zep every day.

[JamesM]

> I like to say "welcome to the ‘90s folks!” when
> I am talking to clients/students

I agree with you Christopher, but remember that to a novice it doesn't matter if the rule was made last month or 20 years ago, it's all new to them.

If I decide to learn carpentry, I may make some of the same mistakes my grandfather did 50 years ago when he was learning it. I'm a beginner making beginner mistakes.

(Of course if the person has previously been taught the rules and then ignores them, that's a different matter.)

[Té Rowan]

Well, how about Camera Tim's Morons in Webspace rant, then? I re-read it at least once a year.

[hrant]

Where's the type?

hhp

[sans sleep]

†

[Joshua Langman]

I disagree with a few of these.

I don't think links need to be underlined; a second color is sufficient.

I also almost never see a need to differentiate visited links. I don't do this when I design sites and it annoys me when other designers do. Except in rare situations, like long lists of nondescriptive links, I don't think there's any need for this.

I always want links to open in new windows, at least links to external sites and documents. I am now in the habit of right-clicking on links so I can choose "open in new window." I want to be able to keep reading the page I'm on before taking a look at where I'm going.

[Luma Vine]

Yea, and get off the lawn too, kids!

[Riccardo Sartori]

Where's the type?
Typographic presentation of information isn't "type" enough for you?

I don't think links need to be underlined; a second color is sufficient.
But it should be chosen wisely.

[BlueStreak]

I agree with Joshua Langman and don't think the web is made for absolute rules of right and wrong. I still use a "click here" from time to time depending on the situation. I have a great client that's a rural telephone company that has customers just now experiencing email and web for the first time. While it may be understood that everyone knows how web links work, and that "click here" isn't necessary, that can be an erroneous assumption. The rules of right and wrong depend on the situation and the audience. That overt call to action is needed for that audience.

I'm reminded of how when CSS came out and it was declared that tables were never to be used any more. I then got several Excel spreadsheets that had to be put on the web. It took me awhile to get the "no tables" thing out of my head and realize in this situation tables ruled.

[aluminum]

"I don't think links need to be underlined; a second color is sufficient."

User tests tend to show otherwise. Also, if a person is color blind, that can be a huge pain.

"I also almost never see a need to differentiate visited links."

It's essential on many sites...like Craigslist. Not so much on a brochure site.

"I always want links to open in new windows, at least links to external sites and documents. I am now in the habit of right-clicking on links so I can choose"

Exactly. YOU get to choose. The complaint is sites that make that decision for you (which is rude).

[aluminum]

BlueStreak: The issue isn't the specific term "click here" but rather using that without any further context.

So, instead of "click here" say "click here [to do/see/read this specific content]"

It's a usability and accessibility issue.

"I'm reminded of how when CSS came out and it was declared that tables were never to be used any more."

Well, not to use them for page layout anymore. For tabular data, tables always were a valid (and usually the 'right') option.

[hrant]

> Typographic presentation of information isn't "type" enough for you?

Is it really typography, or usability design?
Maybe you're right though.

hhp

[Jens Kutilek]

Also don't forget that there is no such thing as a »click« on touch screen devices and screen readers.

[BlueStreak]

I agree Darrel/Aluminum. These kind of web rules get thrown out as absolutes without any context applied. My problem here is that I think too many follow the "rules" without any understanding of the why or when the various rules are to be applied — that actually goes for design in general. FWIW, when I got going with designing the Excel tables, I was blown away at how wonderful the CSS for tables/tablular data are.

Jens Kutilek, you have a fine point too. We are entering the Post-PC world where all rules are due to be rewritten yet again.

[timd]

The problem, for readers, with making clickable links a different colour (and writing rules about them) is that they scream for attention on that page interrupting concentration, whereas the Typophile wiki links are almost too subtle.

[Christopher Dean]

@Jens: A fantastic point. Hadn’t thought of that one.

[aluminum]

"is that they scream for attention on that page"

Yes, context is everything. That said, links are usually meant to draw attention, so if that's a bad thing, perhaps that's the wrong place to be putting links (perhaps a side bar or footnotes would make more sense in that context)

[Té Rowan]

Yet another no-no, though a slightly amusing one, exists at wa2ise.com: Changing hovered-over links from roman to italic. Just hover over the trailing edge of a long link text, and you'll see why.

Once you have had your fill of link pong, you can always grab the ornamental fonts or try to read about the All-American 5 class of radio sets.

[russellm]

"click" doesn't literally mean the onomatopoetic sound made by clicking a mouse... And, it's not really a mouse either, BTW.

[hrant]

But in the desktop world there's a difference between rolling
over and actually clicking/touching; this is sadly missing from
touch-screens, which is why I eagerly await the arrival of truly
gestural interfaces. Some years ago Microsoft's Surface product
held some promise in terms of "hovering"; I was once on a team
to produce a developer's kit for it, and I remember pushing for
the deep incorporation of hovering. And portable devices might
actually be able to do a poor-man's version via the camera.

hhp

[Christopher Dean]

I remember similar issues with Windows Mobile when I worked with some WAP developers during the 1990’s .con era (That wasn’t a typo. We were given $5,000,000.00 of VC for doing SFA).