License Prices, Real, and docs

[Troy Rollins]

On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 05:19  PM, Wolfgang M. Bereuter wrote:

>
>> Having faced this problem (many glossary terms - relatively small
>> amount of text) with a number of educational software titles we have
>> developed we opted to provide page-specific lists of glossary terms
>> adjacent to the main text. I have to agree with Troy that 'invisible'
>> hyperlinks are way less than ideal.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Terry...
>
> Me too...
> this makes the user working (reading) like a dough mixers ;)

Yes, regardless of Jeanne's excellently portrayed case for the contrary, 
I'll reassert that invisible hot links are EXTREMELY poor design, in any 
and all cases. While I recognize that there is a difference in "primary" 
and glossary hot links, having one set as invisible basically says that 
they are so inconsequential that they are hardly worth the bother. The 
fact that they are invisible almost ensures that they will not be used. 
I certainly don't wave my cursor around pages of text in hopes that 
there exists some "hidden gem" of information which will make things 
more clear, or provide additional clues as to what I am attempting to 
do. I have never seen a case which justifies providing links to some 
information, and then making them invisible. Revolution documentation 
included.

Besides, if colorizing makes things more difficult to read, why does 
every scripter I know prefer colorized script?

I would suggest making glossary links a very deep blue, which would not 
contrast dramatically with the black text of the documentation, yet 
would provide a clue that there is some additional information if one is 
so inclined.

Cheers.

--
Troy
RPSystems, LTD
www.rpsystems.net