Message-ID: <45A12D56.8040809@hagander.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:26:46 +0100
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, perrym3@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Patch for text.css
References: <20070106173601.E08E5DCC11C@svr2.hagander.net>
	<4387.1168105682@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200701062237.01030.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <200701062237.01030.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 12:48, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> in principle  i like it, but there was a reason it was there. anyond know
>>>  why? Objections to changing it1?
>> Surely it was just a typo --- I can't believe anyone would intentionally
>> hide the difference between visited and unvisited links.  The question
>> though is what two colors we want to use.
>>
> 
> I'd be more surprised if it wasn't done intentionally; web designers use this 
> technique all the time, claiming it adds a more consitent color scheme / look 
> to the website.  Usability analysts will tell you that anything you think you 
> gain in asthetics is lost in breaking the standard color conventions people 
> are used to. The above patch sets visited links as a darker/paler blue; if we 
> are going to change it I'd suggest going with the standard purple color (or 
> something very similar). 

Or should we perhaps just stop setting a color at all on it? That would
let the browser choose color? I don't know how common it is for people
to change the colors of the links, but I'm sure some do... And then we'd
just go with whatever the browser had?

//Magnus