Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:46 pm
by Roja
So you want it to be a link, but not show users its a link. The counter suggestion was underlining, which..
Jenk wrote:It actually makes reading blocks of code annoying, like those websites that have the annoying ad-ware stuff that has keywords linking to etailers for that related product, or as a tooltip on every 5th word.
Is exactly what they do (underlining).

Sounds like this one might need a vote. I definitely dont like the idea of links without identifying the fact that they are links, and you two seem to definitely not like the idea of links that DO identify the fact that they are links.

Incompatible. Put it up for a vote.

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:55 pm
by John Cartwright
I would put it to a vote as well, even us moderators seem to disagree what should be done with it..

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:12 pm
by josh
Roja wrote: you two seem to definitely not like the idea of links that DO identify the fact that they are links.
No, I just don't like them dis-colored. They stand out too much. Also I see it like this, once someone knows they are links they do not need an identifying characteristic, they always know that function names are links. As for the intial finding out that they are linked right now they have no resemblance whatsoever to the rest of the links on the forum.. so if we are going to link them at least use the main link style, that is used on the rest of the forums. I agree a vote is needed, not on wether or not to make them links, but rather on how to display them (also even if they look like the old function names before they were links, its not like we are stepping backwards, we got along just fine like that.. just because not everyone knows they are links doesn't mean its negative progress is what I'm saying)

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:15 pm
by Jenk
Roja wrote:So you want it to be a link, but not show users its a link. The counter suggestion was underlining, which..
Jenk wrote:It actually makes reading blocks of code annoying, like those websites that have the annoying ad-ware stuff that has keywords linking to etailers for that related product, or as a tooltip on every 5th word.
Is exactly what they do (underlining).

Sounds like this one might need a vote. I definitely dont like the idea of links without identifying the fact that they are links, and you two seem to definitely not like the idea of links that DO identify the fact that they are links.

Incompatible. Put it up for a vote.
You could always try putting less of a bias on it..

With PHP's syntax highlighting being as colourful as it already is, adding another colour to it, makes it even more random and quite frankly a headache to read, and doesn't achieve the goal of identifying the link (as jshpro2 said, and also the same for me.. it wasn't until I moused over 'accidentally' that it occured to me)

Does this mean you joyfully read clicksor pages, safe in the knowledge that every link is very visible to you, when all you want to do is read the text?

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:50 pm
by Roja
Jenk wrote:You could always try putting less of a bias on it..
My position is that the unique link needs to be identified, and your position is that it needs to use the same color as other links (blue). How was my statement that those are incompatible biased?
Jenk wrote:makes it even more random
Its not random at all - its extremely defined. You could argue that it is too much order - specifying an extra color when one isnt needed, but its not random.
Jenk wrote:and quite frankly a headache to read
For you. For me, as I mentioned, I find it lovely.
Jenk wrote:and doesn't achieve the goal of identifying the link
On the contrary, its a different color, so it does call out that the word 'means something else'. Its a unique type of link, unlike the other links on the site, so I agree with it needing another color.
Jenk wrote:Does this mean you joyfully read clicksor pages, safe in the knowledge that every link is very visible to you, when all you want to do is read the text?
I don't bother with the sites doing it. I've never found a site where I couldnt find the material I wanted elsewhere without that annoyance. Not to mention, you are comparing apples to oranges - clicksor links arent useful (these are), clicksor links are underlined, bolded, and colored differently (these are simply a new color), and most important of all, these actually help users.

Who was trying to inject bias? I suggested putting it up for a vote - you cant get much less bias than an open vote.

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:03 am
by feyd
We're debating a potential solution that solves everyone's problems with the links (and possibly the code highlighting colors too) amongst the moderators. When we know more about it, we'll let you all know what we've come up with so you can choose.

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:53 am
by josh
OK, I know we are going to vote on it but I just had to point this out
Roja wrote:clicksor links are [....] colored differently (these are simply a new color)

Colored differently == colored in a new color

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:18 am
by Chris Corbyn
jshpro2 wrote:Also I see it like this, once someone knows they are links they do not need an identifying characteristic, they always know that function names are links.
You've missed the point.

How would someone know that the function is a link unless they tried it? If I showed a block of code with a function called hickory_dickory_dock() and it show the same way as preg_match_all() there's no distinction. The point was that *documented* function have some clear distinction from user defined ones as well as the useful fact you can go right to PHP.net for it's documentation. You can also hover the link for a tootip. If the color wasn't changed or the link wasn't in bold/underline you'd have to make a point of attempting to click the function purely to see if it's a built-in function or not.

We'll put it up for a vote with a few options, including perhaps getting rid of the feature all together.

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:31 am
by Roja
jshpro2 wrote:OK, I know we are going to vote on it but I just had to point this out
Roja wrote:clicksor links are [....] colored differently (these are simply a new color)

Colored differently == colored in a new color
The comparison was that they *also* underline and bold them.

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:48 am
by jayshields
Didn't know there was another thread besides the voting one.

As far changing the linked functions colours; I think it's a good idea, then you can easily see where people have spelt function names wrong.

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:42 pm
by GOGO56
d11wtq | REMOVED