HN Reader

[1] https://design.homeoffice.gov.uk/accessibility/links

A link that just says "Amaya" could be an internal or external link, and even if it's clear from context that the purpose of following the link is to download Amaya (rather than, for example, read more about it), it's not clear whether it's a direct link to the file or a link to the download page.

> To download W3C's editor/browser Amaya, _click here_.

Is extraordinarily clear. I'll click the link and it will either download directly, or it will be a download page.

In contrast:

> Get _Amaya_!

That suggests a link to the Amaya website, not a download page. That's not effective for a download.

Similarly:

> Tell me more about _Amaya_: W3C's free editor/browser that lets you create _HTML_, _SVG_, and _MathML_ documents.

This is terrible. It's not about downloading, and "tell me more" is the command, but not linked! For all I know, the "Amaya" link goes to a corporate landing page, not the "tell me more" information I actually need.

The conventional uses on the web are totally fine:

> To download W3C's editor/browser Amaya, _click here_.

> _Download Amaya_, the W3C's editor/browser.

The idea that links shouldn't be verbs seems very silly to me. Links should absolutely be verbs, when they involve an action like downloading or finding out more. Obviously that's different from "reference" links like in Wikipedia, where you're finding more about a topic.

And "click here" makes it exceptionally clear that a link isn't merely a reference link, but an action link. When I see:

> Get _Amaya_!

That... doesn't tell me how to get Amaya. That tells me "Amaya" is a reference link, not a download link.

So links to my website are fine, while links to my website are inherently not. I also have a strong pet peeve around imperative tone, so I'd never write something like go to my website or follow this link.

> Ignoring the garbage on Web pages is a skill that some people don't have, and I don't know how to teach it. I'm reminded of this each time I try to help someone who doesn't have my background, use the Web; there are users who look at the literally first thing on the page and think about it carefully, even if it's "Please enable notifications," before they see the second item on the page at all.

> With Google searches now offering multiple screenfulls of garbage before the actual results, well.

> A related issue is failing to understand the epistemic status of different kinds of text on a page. E.g. the user who sees a clickable link with the text "I forgot my password" and believes that that means it's telling him he did forget his password (and it somehow knows this?), rather than just being the place to click if he forgot his password.

> The death of UI standardization, of course, makes this issue much worse.

https://mstdn.io/@mattskala/113188291223682980

I think of "click here" as stage direction mistakenly left in. When most authors write, they often don't write in a hypertext context. Instead of using a Markdown-like notation for links, they default to stage direction.

    Get *Amaya*. 
    Tell me more about *Amaya*.

* It's only 10 char and much too short for someone to click when it's inline with other links. Let's not mention text squirming around the screen via molasses JS, kicking your text up, down, and around the screen for several seconds before those short 10 chars finally become stationary.

* With high resolution touch screens, you're maybe 80% accurate on actually clicking right there. Again, my accuracy is my fat finger, and nearby links are just UI landmines.

Preferably with a download icon to indicate that it's going to be the actual file and not just a link to another page with the real download button hidden among 4 ads that are just download buttons.

`contributed Sep 2001 by Aaron Swartz`

Wild to see how much this person contributed to the open web we use today. I think the most notable example was RSS? It’s a shame that rss feeds have been nuked from existence.

With that singular idea in mind, everything else falls into place naturally.

There's also SEO benefits here as well because the more descriptive text helps search engines understand what search keywords might be relevant for the page being linked to.

I guess this was written at a time when CSS was used relatively conservatively and, whatever the label of the button or link, it was clear you could click on it.

Somehow the current UX trend is to remove those underlines and boxes. I'm not sure how people are meant to intuit that something is clickable _except_ for the label.

Anyway, I've learned long ago to ignore UI and UX advice coming from websites that look like theirs.

This article is from a marketing perspective. It assumes that the goal of the web site is to get the user to click on the link. Not to offer the user the opportunity to get more detailed info if they want it.

Don't use "click here" for link text

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41925658

Ctrl-K is the almost-universal shortcut for “insert hyperlink”, which is strongly preferred by everyone to a 237-character Sharepoint URL.

"click here" should be a direct link to the latest version. You click on it, it should download the latest version.

> To download W3C's editor/browser Amaya, [click here].

This gives you an option, where multiple options may be available.

> To download Amaya, go to the [Amaya Website] and get the necessary software.

This is even better, as 'click here' assumes the input device.

> Get [Amaya]!

Whilst being simpler, it does not make clear that the action is optional.

Whether I click something may require some additional information around the link, for example:

> To download W3C's free editor/browser Amaya, go to the [Amaya Website] and select the latest version on the home page.

Now I know that it's free, and I have instructions to carry out to find what I'm looking for.

Now that I paste it in this HN comment, the link is gone. If it had said "To get Amaya, click here!" at least you could have seen from the context that it used to be a link.

There's also no explanation in it for why making a verb a link would be bad while nouns are ok.

You want to see what good hypertext looks like? Check out: https://www.zetatalk.com

This lady has been promulgating her own brand of UFO kookery since the 90s, always in this same beautiful format. Nicely flowing prose, with only the relevant words turned into a link to delve further into the topic. Wikimedia also has very good practices.

But whenever I get depressed about the state of webshit, I glance back at ZetaTalk, a product of a different era, when hypertext was exciting, "surfing the web" to explore topics was a fun pastime, and anyone could put virtually anything they wanted online.

People don't read websites linearly, in the best case they skim read all the buttons and links. I personally would include the verb as it gives important context and is a clearer CTA for the "skimmers".

Amaya is W3C's... "Download Amaya"!

————- Learn more about [the browser]

Never hear about [the browser] again

Those links will do very different things.

is preferable to any shorter link.

If, somehow, you have multiple links in a sentence, see if you can manage a word or two of unlinked text in between, or, better yet, stop being pretentious and focus on usefulness.

Not: _You can run web browsers,_ _spreadsheets_ or _drawing software._

You can run:

* _web browsers_

* _spreadsheets_

* _drawing software_

So who is w3 to say how people should and shouldn't use links? All that I see are just opinions, with no objective metrics/theories to back up their recommendations.

W3 should be in the business of setting up technical standards that go through rigorous processes, not creating nonsense like this.

For example, you have a page about... unemployment benefits. It has some body text that contains hyperlinks to other pages of the website, but at the end is has standalone paragraphs that say, "Click here to check your eligibility and apply online" and "Click here to log into the benefits portal". "Click here" identifies the things you are the most likely to do if you visit this page. This is much easier than scanning the body text for "the _residents_ of the _state_ can _apply online_ to sign up for unemployment benefits".

It's not the best option, an even better option it to pull out all "action" links into a separate panel, so it is typographically distinct from the rest of the page. Then the links can just say "check your eligibility and apply for benefits" and "log into the benefits portal".

Nobody appreciates being talked down to with "click here" as if they can't figure out how to follow a link.

ex.

To download W3C's editor/browser Amaya, [click here].

[Download Amaya]

[Click here] to get Amaya for Windows

All collapse into something singular and sensible like [Download Amaya installer for Windows here] as an action inside the action section.

I don't know. I should probably put on a sleeping mask and navigate the web via a screen reader one of these days to really experience how things are.

“Click here” is just the start. Bold, red, and blinking. People barely read, let alone process what they’re reading. “Click here” is at least simple.

> contributed Sep 2001 by Aaron Swartz

Thoughts

-- this advice is 24 years old (and I think largely ignored)

-- Aaron Swartz (!)

I feel like a link should be used for more information retrieval; therefore, the link should be descriptive of its forthcoming content. Instead of using a link as a call to action, shouldn't it be a button? This feels more "pure" in the semantic web context.