On 31 May 2017, at 16:59, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0000, Andre Schappo wrote:
My standard practice is to make, whenever possible, my links WYSIWYG. I think it a good practice. Sometimes it is not possible because of overly long and complex URLs.
It's never actually been a recommendation from hypertext people, however. They've always suggested that you should put links liberally in running text that is in itself nicely readable. So,
<a href="target">In a previous post</a>, we discussed UA…
as opposed to
In a previous post, which you can find at <a href="target">target</a>, we discussed UA …
Why do you think it's a good practice? It makes for very stilted text.
A
User reassurance - knowing the exact address of the website they will visit if they click the link. Transparency - stating clearly and exactly the address of the website they will visit if they click the link. User feedback - Users can visually verify that the address of the website they land on after clicking the link is indeed what was stated. I consider it makes for better security because the address is upfront for visual inspection/examination and not hidden behind some text string/image. There is much discussion/arguments on IDNs and phishing/spoofing because of, for instance, confusables. I consider spoofing/phishing is more easily achieved with links hiding behind text/images without going to the effort of employing and registering IDNs containing confusables. eg <a href="http://WeWillStealYourMoney.com">the honest and genuine bank<a> I too used to hide links behind text/images but for about 4/5 years now I have been making links explicit as I consider it better security and better practice. One way in which I retain reading flow is to treat the link as a full stop ie terminating a sentence. Also, one can use links in a similar manner to the way citations are used in academic papers André Schappo