borders on images

[The Big Glee Bopper]

On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Michael Haseltine wrote:

> Interesting point. In this case, the words following the icon are part of
> the same link so the consequence of the icon not being identified as a link
> are inconsequential. The icon is there for visual reasons like aesthetics
> and identification, rather than as a link.

Then <IMG SRC=myImage.gif> , no link, unless you want some users to 
_stumble_ into a link and think they are playing a video game. This is ok 
as long as it is what you want to do because it meets a need.

Here's an interesting sample which uses _text_ in blue as an image in 
table form: http://www.indiana.edu/~iuscp/resources.html. Uses no blue 
border but does have the _illusion_ of blue text even though it is really 
an image so it maintains user expectations.

It does load slowly because all table elements are images but since it's 
primarily designed for local use at IU it's ok.

 --Thom

> >There is a difference between you not wanting a blue border and the users 
> >who expect a blue box to indicate a clickable space. Image maps are bad 
> >enough since there is almost no feedback. In most pc/mac based software 
> >the clickable button _greys_ to provide feedback. If you eliminate the 
> >blue box you'll need to user test this to figure how many folks will miss 
> >the link. If you watch people using web pages on a graphical browser what 
> >they do is _ignore_ most information looking for the link. If you _hide_ 
> >the link many will miss it.
> >
> >--Thom
> 
> 
> Michael Haseltine -- Office of Arid Lands Studies, University of Arizona
> haseltin at ag.arizona.edu
> 
>