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
