Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Jakob Neilsen Hyperlink Fixation

I''m rereading "Designing Web Usabiliy" by the afformentioned and am having trouble accepting his "hyperlinks should always be blue for unvisited and purple for visited" mantra.

As a perpetual student of design and usability, I'm finding it a little difficult to accept. It basically constrains the range of colours and presentation you can use to ensure that the links don't look out of place on a page design.

I would assume, for the sake of pleasing everyone and aiding usability, that it would be better to us an clear/faded metaphor.

For example, on a black background, you may choose white as your unvisited link colour, with grey as your visited link colour. The white would stand out more so than the grey, making the white the obvious unvisited link.

On a lighter background, a more contrasting colour and s similarly "faded" version of the same would act as the unvisited and visited links.

This would give the designed free range with colour scheme etc, while maintaining the high navigation usability associated with coloured link states.

Anyone?

Geoff Bennett
Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Hi Geoff,

lets say that you decio make your 'visited links' color yellow, and another developer on a previous site had made their _normal_ link color yellow.

Lets further say that Im not a geek and have no idea how easy it is to change said colors.

How do I know what I am looking at?

FullnameRequired
Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Why should unvisited links stand out more?  Do you believe that your readers should visit every page you link to, and preferably visit each of them only once?

Perhaps the reader will find one of the linked pages particularly useful, and want to visit it again.  There's no reason to make that link harder to spot.

There are also good reasons not to use custom text and background colors at all.

Rob Mayoff
Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Its not a question of 'what are the best colors for hyperlinks?' but more a question of 'is this consistent with all the other web sites on the internet?'.

Consistency is a good thing in user interfaces.

Daniel Searson
Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Don't forget that much of Jacob Neilson's comments about such things were made in 1996 - right where they belong.

UI Designer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Sometimes the same links occur against different words, and it can be annoying to click on a link for further information when it just brings up an earlier page you'd already read through. On sites I visit once, or for the first time, I often get confused as to what web references are new when the link colours are changed, end up looking at the same page X times.

Still, I made my own web site with a different link colour scheme, so what do I know???

Joel Goodwin
Wednesday, June 25, 2003

There is no such thing as consistency between sites these days. There are elements that are similar, but with divergence of design trends, one should not aim for consistency, rather than investing in usability on a per site basis.

The days of Times New Roman and slate gray backgrounds are gone. You may be able to point to one or two obscure references, but from a mainstream perspective, they have gone the way of the dodo.

You cannot expect to constrain design for the sake of a foolish consistency.

Web design has moved on from a static page containing information, to dynamic content with a lot of fluff. I posit that forced hyperlink colour consistency is irrelevant.

What should matter most is, regardless of design, a user arriving at a site for the first time is able to navigate the site without having to think to hard about it.

Geoff Bennett
Thursday, June 26, 2003

" one should not aim for consistency, rather than investing in usability on a per site basis."

???  consistency _aids_ usability.  In fact, the case could be made that 'usability _is_ familarity' in which case consistency is not a separate entity.

"The days of Times New Roman and slate gray backgrounds are gone"

and no one AFAIK wants to bring them back consistency and usability have _nothing_ to do with times new roman and slate gray backgrounds.

"You cannot expect to constrain design for the sake of a foolish consistency."
usability = consistency
obviously I dont mean that literally, and this approach can be carried to extremes, but totally refusing to link the two is genuinely stupid IMO

"Web design has moved on from a static page containing information, to dynamic content with a lot of fluff"

no, it hasn't.
this website we are using at the moment, for instance, is composed of static pages (created dynamically) containing information (<g> or at least opinions)

There are dynamic sites as well of course, but just because a webpage contains javascript, java applets, flash thingies, or uses css creatively does not mean that the basic rules of usability do not apply.
and consistency _is _a basic rule of usability.

"I posit that forced hyperlink colour consistency is irrelevant."

I posit that you have no idea what you are talking about :)

Jakob Nielson, for instance, has twice carried out actual research into the importance of hyperlink colour consistency.

both times it showed that it _is_ of importance, personally this feels like a case of science proving the blindingly obvious to me, and it always astounds me that the occasional misguided soul argues the opposite.

Once you have carried out similar research I will be very interested in listening to your findings.

"What should matter most is, regardless of design, a user arriving at a site for the first time is able to navigate the site without having to think to hard about it. "

thats exactly the point, and is exactly what being consistent is about.
Achieving this requires _good_ design.
Its rather like anything, breaking the rules is fine so long as you know exactly why the rules were put there in the first place, and understand their importance.

FullNameRequired
Thursday, June 26, 2003

There's nothing I hate more than a site with orange unvisited links and fuscia visited links (substitute any two random colors there). I have no clue which pages I've been on and which I haven't, and I'm pretty comfortable on the Internet.

Personally, I like gray for visited links, or a muted version of the same color... but that's not the MOST usable choice. You also have to take into account your audience.

AARP, Yahoo, Google, eBay, Amazon and any site that has a wide or specifically non-internet-savvy audience would do best to stick with blue/purple.

Any site that caters to savvy 'net users can get a little funky, but within limits.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Oh yeah, read Steve Krug's "Don't Make Me Think." My review is on Amazon.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Ideally, the UI standard would've been:

- Red, for unvisited links ("hot spot")
- Purple, for visited links ("cold spot")

But I agree that not everybody is well-versed these kinds of matters, and to stick to convention is usually best.

Chi Lambda
Thursday, June 26, 2003

I'm not talking about throwing away consistency. I'm talking about throwing away blue and purple (in the instances where it doesn't work with the design you are using).

That, to me, is a foolish consistency.

If my company colours are orange and grey, should the links be blue and purple? They would be nigh on unreadable using those colours.

Be consistent in what you do as far as your site is concerned, but for crying out loud, who honestly cares if it's blue and purple, or a set of complementary colours?

This is not consistency for usabilities sake, this is a foolish consistency. There's nothing wrong with those colours if they suit the design you're using, but if they don't what's the point? You're only *harming* usability!

Forcing your site to use the same colours as every other site will require you to use a similar scheme as every other site so the links will be readable. This is what I mean about forgoing web wide consistency over per site usability.

The blue/purple combination came from the days of Times New Roman and slate grey backgrounds, hence the comment.

"usability = consistency", more correctly written as "consistency = usability" is a perfectly valid comment. I am not advocating throwing away the consistency of links identifying whether they have been visited, merely how they are identified. I never implied the two should not be linked.

As for these forums, the design Joel has run with suites blue/purple. I don't have a problem with people who decide to go that way, and it works fine here. It looks ok in the context of the site.

Example 1:

http://www.verniernetworks.com/

They use a white background, so the blue/purple combination would be readable, but it won't go with the overarching green scheme of the site. It would look terrible.

Example 2:

http://www.convergentnet.com/

How would a blue/purple combination look on this site?

Example 3:

http://www.idsoftware.com/

Or this one?

I'm not saying that it should be banned, but saying that it should be the only standard by which linking should be identified is living with your head in the sand.

Geoff Bennett
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Hi Geoff,


"That, to me, is a foolish consistency."

<g> Im going to take a leap of faith here and assume that you have not yet carried out research that proves one way or another whether usability is enhanced by sticking to a standard set of colors for hyperlinks.
Jakob Nielson has....argue that his methods are bad if you wish but _please_ dont arbitarily ignore research and argue that his conclusions are wrong just because you 'believe'  (as in have faith) that the opposite is true.

"If my company colours are orange and grey, should the links be blue and purple? "

just because the colors of your company are orange and grey does _not_ mean that its website will be composed of those colors....the logo is the place for representing that stuff....company colors should not be used as an excuse for using bad design.


"who honestly cares if it's blue and purple, or a set of complementary colours?"

in turns of arbitary color, no one.  _but_ in terms of maintaining consistency, anyone who is interested in usability over flash.

"This is what I mean about forgoing web wide consistency over per site usability"

but its web wide consistency that is important to aid the usability of each site.

The example I used above remains an excellent one, a inexperienced user comes from a site that uses yellow for 'fresh' links and arrives at your website where you use yellow for 'used' links.
How long does it take them to work this out?



example 1.

mm, nice site.  I wonder who their target audience is.

example 2.

blech.  you use this as an example of what?

on the righthand side, down the bottom,
"Convergent networks Advances..."
thats a link.
I didn't even notice until I scrubbed across it.
They use 4 different ways of indicating a link, and there are 2 other links that dont even like as if they are.
(and Im an experienced browser.....a newbie would have a lot more trouble identifying them)


example 3.

<shrug> over designed, busy, aimed at techie users, as such its about what you expect.



Im not sure what you want to hear.  the general rule is that breaking consistency arbitarily is just stupid, 9 in 10 times Ive been asked to do this its been for bad reasons and we've found another approach that works just as well and doesn't confuse newbies (as much).  the other times Ive agreed and done it.

hyperlink colour is _not_ irrelevant, maintaining consistency is a basic rule of usability for _good reasons_ and breaking that rule is mostly a mistake.

if/when you decide to break that rule be sure you understand the consequences and do not try to fool yourself that ther eare none.

FullNameRequired
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Hi FNR,

No, I haven't carried out "extensive" research. <g> Neither do I consider "extensive" research carried out more than 5 years ago current.

The web has come a long way in the last 5 years. Rigid opinions need to be reconsidered.

The logo isn't the only place company colours should, or have to, be displayed - and I agree, it does not *mean* the website has to be those colours. My point is that should not be governed by the implied standard of blue/purple.

Many companies spend hundreds and thousands of dollars branding their organisation based around the colours they have selected. They undoubtably spent tens of thousands having websites designed. All to be spoiled by the blue/purple dogma.

There is a balance between usability and flash. Many people miss it, many don't.

The examples given are of colour schemes that don't suit the blue/purple idea, not necessarily bastions of usability in and of themselves. I most definately wouldn't hold up id's site as the usability pinnacle.

Consistency for consistency's sake is why there are hundreds of apps that use the Outlook bar when there's no reason to. There are many apps that have a toolbar, without having a reason to!

Consistency *is* a good thing. Consistency for consistency's sake is foolish.

Knowing when to break with consistency is a fine line to walk, I agree, but the internet has come a long way, as has internet usability.

You might say that blue/purple helps newbies with usability, but (as Joel has said himself) newbies aren't newbies forever. People with genuine disabilities like colour blindness/low vision are going to suffer if people *don't* make links different to blue/purple in the instances where the site design doesn't suit. To change the entire site against the company branding is ridiculous.

It the case of low vision, contrast is the key. Light vs Dark. Neilsen says that hyperlinks should be underlined, as this helps them to stand out from the rest of the body text. This is a good idea which is not hampered by site design. Blue/purple isn't. If you have complementary colours that use a contrast to differentiate between visited and unvisited, you can still achieve a high level of usability without sacrificing design.

Geoff Bennett
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Dear Geoff,
                  Why is it that so many of the questions asked here are rhetorical? People could prove that changing from blue and purple causes 50% of pregnant  users to abort from the shock and you would still dismiss that as "foolish sentimentality".

                  Changing from the blue/purple combination will confuse users. If you think that is offset by the aesthetic effects of using the company's color scheme then fair enough. It's a trade off. Faded in my opinion is not a good idea; grayed out is normally used for links or information that one does not have to click on.

                  If you're using text links then put them on a white or off-white background wherever possible (which is probably always). You can keep the company branding as borders.

                  Finally remember that many companies don't really care a shit if anybody uses their web site; it's just there to impress, like the trophy secretary. Just make sure you collect payment in advance.

Stephen Jones
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Rather than specify blue or purple link colours in your stylesheet, leave the link colours unspecified. That way if a colourblind person (or someone who just can't stand blue and purple) has set their browser to use other colours by default, it will work correctly.

It's true that there's no standardization on the Web, but it's also true that there's no ambiguity whatsoever about what a blue underlined link means and what a purple underlined link means. Nobody has to spend time figuring it out.

Brad
Thursday, June 26, 2003

I think it's not about consistency across the web, it's about consistency across your site.

What's critical is:
a) a link looks like a link
b) nothing else looks like a link
c) visited links are distinctive from unvisited links
d) link colors are consistent throughout your website

Note that achieving a-d can take a lot of time and usability testing, so blue/purple shortcut the decision process.

But the only link complaints I've ever heard are:
a) "Can't tell what is a link and what isn't"
b) "Can't tell which links I've visited"

I have never, ever heard "how come visited links aren't purple? That's confusing"

Philo

Philo
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Stephen,

"People could prove that changing from blue and purple causes 50% of pregnant  users to abort from the shock and you would still dismiss that as "foolish sentimentality"."

No I wouldn't. I know this is a contrived example, but it is wrong. I don't accept that his case is 100% valid. I'm not entirely disagreeing with it, but I don't agree that *all* links should be the same colour regardless of anything else.

I don't like the fact that he (Neilsen) takes an overbearing stance that links should *always* be blue/purple because he did a study (about which I can find no information, mind you) that tells him so. What was the demographic targeted in the study? In what timeframe was the study conducted? The closest thing I can locate is a link to a now nonexistant study conducted by Neilsen at Sun in 1994 while he was redesigning the Sun intranet.

I have not done a study, I just don't accept everything at face value.

Brad,

"It's true that there's no standardization on the Web, but it's also true that there's no ambiguity whatsoever about what a blue underlined link means and what a purple underlined link means. Nobody has to spend time figuring it out. "

There is more than flat out colour that makes a link a link. Here is perhaps a better example of where I'm coming from.

A white page, with black text.

In one instance, the unvisited links are underlined words coloured blue. They change to red when you mouse over them, and the mouse pointer changes to a pointing hand. It is extremely obvious that this is a hyperlink. You click the link and eventually come back to the page. The underlined text is now purple, but the mouse pointer still changes to a pointing hand.

In another instance, the unvisited links are underlined words that are coloured green. (I'm trying not to chose asthetically pleasing colours on purpose). They change to yellow when you mouse over them, and the mouse pointer changes to a pointing hand.

Imagine you've never used a web browser before? Which of these two is the more obvious hyperlink? They carry the *same* level of usability at this point.

Now you click on the link, and eventually you make it back to the page. The underlined text is now dark green, but the mouse pointer still changes to a pointing hand when you mouse over.

If the other links on the page are green, and this link is dark green, what would you think that means?

A hyperlink, visited or otherwise, is defined by more than colour. For a user to be aware that a section of text is a hyperlink, there are three cues available. Text colour, text format and mouse pointer feedback.

With any two out of three of those points met, anyone - of any skill level, will be able to figure that it is a hyperlink. If the colour is then altered to be of noticably darker contrast than originally, anyone will be able to recognise the difference between a visited and unvisited link.

If you take someone who has never used a browser before, the blue/purple combination will mean as much as green/dark green.

If you revisit that person after they have been browsing for an hour, I would be willing to wager that the underlining and mouse pointer feedback means more to them than the fact that not all the hyperlinks use blue/purple.

Geoff Bennett
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Philo my old friend, you have hit the nail on the head.

Geoff Bennett
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Okay, here's an example:

Check out Edward Tufte's forum:

http://www.edwardtufte.com/154480738/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1

I check out this forum about once a week or two, and EVERY time I have to reorient myself to his link conventions: red underlined means I haven't been there yet, black underline (he used to use a different colour, a darker shade of red) means I've been there. To me, it's not intuitive, and I have to look arond the page to see some links that I know I've never used in order to be sure.

That said, I always take Nielsen's pronouncements with a grain of salt and have safely ignored many of his rules. On my own site I do use the blue and purple convention but use bold instead of underlining (underline appears only when you mouse over a link), and the links are perfectly obvious and clear.

My pet peeve is links that are some colour that doesn't contrast much with the surrounding text, with no underlining or bold. It's way too easy to miss those on the page.

Brad
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Yeah Philo, that's about right on. In fact, I think if you plucked 100 people off the street that have never been online before, set them doen in front of a computer, and gave em a brief lesson on how to click a hyperlink, maybe two or three of them would be able to figure out that the purple means it was visited.

Mark
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Brad,

Re: Edward Tufte.

Not to nitpick, but it's red and dark red. :) It didn't bother me a bit, either. But, that's just you and me.

But I do agree with you about poor choice of colour not allowing links to stand out from the body text.

Geoff Bennett
Thursday, June 26, 2003


The issue here is not if a site becomes completely unusable when a designer changes the default hiperlink colors. A golden rule is to choose what colors seems more appropiate to your site, and to choose colors that helps the user to figure out if some piece of text is a hyperlink or not.

Now, when a user is visiting a page for first time, there is a small amount of time employed to figure out things. It's some sort of discovery process: your mind get used to the type of font used, to the background and foreground colors, and figures what stuff are hyperlinks and what not.

Now, for every single change made in this parameters (fonts, colors, text-decoration), there is a small amount of thinking involved. If a page maintains the default colors, this "period" approaches zero. This is why Nielsen says "don't change colors": because it's easy for your users to adapt their thinking to your site.  If a page changes the default colors, but a good set of colors are chosen (for example, green, dark green) and are consistent across the site, this adjusting period is still small, and can be justified because the overall experience for the user is better.

(I think I'll better stop. Hope my english is not that unreadable)

Leonardo Herrera
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Okay, I'm going out on a guessing limb here...

I *think* the psychology of links is:
Bright color = interesting, should go look
Dull color = been there, done that, visited

Blue/purple meets this criteria, as does Tufte's bright red/dark red. I've seen other variations, and in general don't have a problem figuring it out.

One caveat for all of this - whatever color scheme you use, always run accessibility tests on it to see what happens to the sight when a colorblind person sets their own colors. (This in and of itself argues for accepting the default blue/purple)

Philo

Philo
Thursday, June 26, 2003

"Not to nitpick, but it's red and dark red. :) It didn't bother me a bit, either. But, that's just you and me."

Eeks, I must be more colourblind than I thought. It looks black to me! I'm pretty sure he did adjust the visited link colour, as the two shades were much closer before.

Brad
Thursday, June 26, 2003

I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out the fact that the convention of using color as the exclusive way to convey a piece of information itself goes against the common rules of usability.  The question, I think, shouldn't be "Is it ok to break with the arbitrary convention of blue/purple for new/visited?", but rather "why are we still using blue/purple for new/visited, and how did we get here in the first place?".  It seems to me that you should at least have a bold/normal or underlined/plain distinction.

Brian
Thursday, June 26, 2003

"Many companies spend hundreds and thousands of dollars branding their organisation based around the colours they have selected."

And will they ever be able to show that spending that money has enhanced profitability?  Or that they're just investing in making their web sites less useful?

Never underestimate the pointy-hairedness of management.

Jim Rankin
Thursday, June 26, 2003

"I do use the blue and purple convention but use bold instead of underlining (underline appears only when you mouse over a link)"

Oh gawd I hate that.

Check out how your page works on an old machine -- bold text is wider than standard and so mousing over your links freezes the browser while the entire page rerenders in order to reflow your paragraph with the link.

On the web, bold means emphasized and underlined means link. That's a standard far more people are familiar with than blue/purple, which was an arbitrary and wrong choice made over a decade ago.

Tony Chang
Thursday, June 26, 2003

"On the web, bold means emphasized and underlined means link."

If the bold text is the same colour as the body text then, yes, it means "emphasized." But if it's a different colour, most people would interpret it at a link. See http://www.zeldman.com for an example. It's obvious that those bolded-and-colored bits are links.

Brad
Thursday, June 26, 2003

A lot of sites keep the same colour link whether the link is visited or unvisited. I don't find these sites any less usable. So my question would be, why is it so important to identify a visited link?

I had thought that a forum would be a good example - e.g. easier to search for topics that you are interested in (hence visited). However, if you've visited more than half the links, it becomes confusing. It is also actually harder to scan the text, because the eye has to re-adjust every time the colour changes. The forum I visit, where the links don't change colour is actually easier to scan read.

Pete J
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Personally Geoff, I think you hurt your own case with those three examples.  Let me go down the list:

1) This one is not so bad.  But if I didn't already know that the page had strange colored links, it would take me a moment to figure out.  Also the "visited" color being orange is bad, IMO.

2) This one is horrible.  I have no idea looking at the page what text is links.  I had to pass my mouse all over the enitre screen just to see what I could click on.

3) This is not particularly good either.  While the links are clearly identified, the "visited" color is almost identical to the "unvisited" color.

I am an experienced computer/web user, and I had trouble with those three pages.  What do you think a novice would do?

Mike McNertney
Thursday, June 26, 2003

One more comment on the three examples.  On the iD site, not only are the visited and unvisited link colors very similar, they are both very difficult to read.  Brown links on a black background does not provide a good amount of contrast.

Mike McNertney
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Jacob Nielsen is 100% right on this issue. It is not about presentation but consistency. Any changes that a designer does to make his links look different break consistency.

With 100% consistency a user can ALWAYS identify the hyperlinks, that is the issue. Users can also override the page settgins and define their own colours.

I personally find it quite annoying when link behaviour is changed or restyled, I then have to mouseover everywhere to identify the links, as they could be just emphasised text.

There are many other serious usability mistakes done by graphic designers striving for presentation quality (narrow audience presentation quality BTW). Fixed font sizes for one, internal scrollbars ... lots and lots.

Consistency is *good* - the user doesn't have to undertake a learning process to use your site.

Richard
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Chi Lambda:
".. Ideally, the UI standard would've been:

- Red, for unvisited links ("hot spot")
- Purple, for visited links ("cold spot")

But I agree that not everybody is well-versed these kinds of matters, and to stick to convention is usually best. .."

Except for the fact that red & purple/magenta are optically quite close, and many people with poorer eyesight or old monitors won't tell them apart easily.

Richard
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Leonardo:

If you read back to my last large post, you will see I actually take some time to point out that it is more than colour that defines a link, and more often than not, users associate the pointed hand with a hyperlink moreso than colour.

Philo:

This site, http://www.designmatrix.com/pl/cyberpl/www/clc.html , dives into the colourblindness/hyperlink colour thing from a design point of view. They basically make my exact argument, but put forward infinitely better than I have been able to.

Citing their conclusion: "Choose hyperlink (anchor) colors that contrast against the normal text color, with unvisited links brighter (hotter) than visited links. Within a set of related hypertext documents, use these link colors consistently. For Web sites this generally means the entire site."

Jim:

"And will they ever be able to show that spending that money has enhanced profitability?"

More often than not, it is about identification, not profitability. Coke = red, Pepsi = blue. Are you going to tell Pepsi they should change their corporate colour scheme because it clashes with unvisited hyperlinks? Or Coke that theirs clashes with active hyperlinks?

Mike:

"Personally Geoff, I think you hurt your own case with those three examples."

Yes. I should've been more clear in my purpose for presenting them. I was using them to demonstrate sites where the blue/purple selection would *not* look good in the context of the colours they chose for their site, not that the sites necessarily demonstrated good usability. My bad. Like I mentioned previously in this thread, iD would *not* be a site I would hold up as a model for usability. :)

Thank you everyone for offering your opinions, differing and otherwise. That is what I asked for, and it is what I got. I wanted to find out if anyone else felt the way I did about the issue, and I sure found out. :)

Don't stop on my account though, and I'll still be reading if anything new pops up before this drops off the end of the list.

Geoff Bennett
Saturday, June 28, 2003

design v's usability

STANDARD ARGUMENT
While I can see where you are coming from I would advise sticking with *accepted* metaphors for linking.  Lets look at your question in a slightly differenct perspective.

    " Q Would you use a different combination of CUT+PASTE keyboard combinations when designing an application for Windows ?"

You could use some other combination but a heck of a lot of users *expect* CTL+C, CTL+P.  Whats a heavily traffic site you  can think of?  ( www.google.com ).  How many of your users would use google and expect standard link behaviour?

Compromise on your design aesthetics and improve your user ability to use your site.  It is a good bet to adopt similiar standards as commonly used websites.

COUNTER ARGUMENT

"... To design an easy-to-use interface, pay attention to what users do, not what they say. Self-reported claims are unreliable, as are user speculations about future behavior. ... "  http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html

Maybe you should do as the man says and run a usability study of you own to see if your ideas hold any water by conducting an usability study.  Here's a link to a description of doing such a study for "10% of design budget".

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030602.html

Regs PR

peter renshaw
Sunday, July 06, 2003

I'm remaining anonomous but let's say I'm a highly respected member of the online culture.

Jacob Nielsen thinks that everyone should have a 56k dial up connection and run CrashScape communicator!

In the real world, IE is technically the most advanced browser today supporting layers and other such stuff most other browser don't.

You should make your own choice on website design and principles and should not be bullied by useit.com and w3.org - they are both out of touch and I'll personally dance on their graves for their hand in putting the internet experience back at least 5 years between them.

People aren't stupid; and if they are then they shouldn't use a computer.

Harsh?

Yes!

But it's the truth.

"D"

D
Tuesday, February 24, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home