Is there a rule that states that all links should be underlined to make them look like links? I have seen many sites where the footer, for example, does not have underlined links.
+1
A:
Its an aesthetic decision - what looks best is up to you. There are no web standards that define this kind of thing.
Andrew Hare
2009-03-02 22:22:52
+17
A:
There's no rule, but it's good design to make your design act as users expect it to (and most users expect links in text to be underlined). So if you don't underline them, make sure the look obviously clickable. See: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040510.html
I personally can't stand links that aren't underlined in text (See: Stack Overflow). You shouldn't have to scrub the text see what's clickable.
John Sheehan
2009-03-02 22:23:09
I think it depends on the context and whether it fits into the overall style of the page. Underlined links are dated and are definitely the easiest way to point out a link is clickable, but to me it's aesthetically distracting
Davy8
2009-03-02 22:44:37
Dated is good. Dated is expected. Dated is understood. Read 'Don't Make Me Think'. You can style them to look good still. Outside of paragraphs of text, it's not as important, as long as its still obviously clickable.
John Sheehan
2009-03-02 22:46:12
As long as its obvious the text is a link (which I think SO succeeds here), does it matter how that is achieved?
Rex M
2009-03-02 22:47:11
By "dated" I mean it seems to be a style that's slowly becoming less and less a necessity and more of an easy way out when you don't have the time and it's not important enough to find something that looks nice rather than merely being functional. (Of course, links should still stand out somehow)
Davy8
2009-03-02 22:47:44
regular links in SO text are ok, visited are not (the contrast isn't high enough so they're not immediately obvious). colored text is not always obvious.
John Sheehan
2009-03-02 22:48:20
I'm not trying to argue that it's bad to use underlines, but that there's are more eye-pleasing ways to achieve the same effect. Functional and Pretty aren't the same thing and it's better to favor Functional to Pretty, but no reason you can't do both.
Davy8
2009-03-02 22:50:17
We've spent 15+ years teaching users that underline == link. The fact that non-underlined links are "in vogue" right now doesn't make them usable/accessible *or* comply with the principle of least surprise. Sure, color *can* mean link, but it can also mean emphasis, aside, random styling, …
Ben Blank
2009-03-02 22:57:01
Actually, I'll amend that — underline *and* color == link. Either alone is likely to confuse people, especially the minimally-computer-literate.
Ben Blank
2009-03-02 22:58:29
Ben, non-underlined links have been en vogue for 11 years. Really, it depends on your target audience. What works for X might not work for Y. Useit.com is extremely ugly by today's standards. If every site looked like that, the Web would be more usable, yet fewer people would actually use it.
RegDwight
2009-03-02 23:06:57
+1
A:
What other visual cue can you offer a user that the text is a link and not normal text? A different color works, perhaps a style?
Visually an underline is simple and universal, but there is no hard rule. Just make them obvious.
MrChrister
2009-03-02 22:23:22
+1
A:
Not necessarily, but when the user hovers the link, it could be underlined instead. And the link should stand out some way, either being bolder or a different color. Blue is an excellent hyperlink color.
Marius
2009-03-02 22:23:24
+8
A:
I would say no, underlining links is pretty gross these days. Do you see any underlined text on this site?
zodeus
2009-03-02 22:23:27
Sorry, I have to down mod this. Not underlining links is terrible usability and requires extra effort from your users to find links. Just coloring text is not adequate. On SO where they're not underlined, they don't stand out enough.
John Sheehan
2009-03-02 22:26:05
I take back the down mod since this is an opinion thread, but my comment stands
John Sheehan
2009-03-02 22:27:16
It depends on the target audience. For many users, like those with good vision, color changes may be enough. If they're experienced users and expect to see links that aren't underlined, it won't be an issue. It can be different for inexperienced users, though.
Matt Olenik
2009-03-02 23:02:47
I haven't had link underlining turned on for my personal preferences since, well, since as long as I've had the option. I think the underlines make it harder to read the text. I understand the usability, especially since blue is a relatively hard color to see, but for me I always turn them off.
Bryan Oakley
2009-03-03 01:51:34
+1
A:
There are no "rules" you have to follow. It's a common interface convention that tells people that those words are, in fact, links. If you choose not to underline them, you should find some other method to show people which words are links, if it isn't clear.
Chad Birch
2009-03-02 22:23:40
+4
A:
There's no rule, but it does help people navigate your site if the links on a webpage stand out somehow from the surrounding text, and one convenient way to do this is to have them underlined. That way, you can color them however you like, but they'll still stand out.
Chris Lutz
2009-03-02 22:23:50
+1
A:
As long as a link is distinct on the page as being a link you should be alright.
For example:
a different color than the rest of the text
changing color on hover
having a background color
Chris Klepeis
2009-03-02 22:24:08
If you make behavior only discoverable on hover, you'll have a very annoying design that slows people down. Slow=fail.
John Sheehan
2009-03-02 22:26:44
+1
A:
There's no hard-and-fast rule that says that they must be underlined, however there is a general convention that links should exhibit a noticeable difference to regular text (and should, at all times display the link cursor, e.g. the 'hand' cursor).
It is, however, generally accepted that users recognise underlined links more quickly than those that don't conform to something that someone would 'expect' to be a link.
James Burgess
2009-03-02 22:24:32
+2
A:
Such as Stackoverflow for example. =p
Do whatever you want. Personally, I like the clean look of links without underlines for a more "button-esque" feel on my sites.
Andrew
2009-03-02 22:24:47
+2
A:
Links should be distinguishable from normal text. If you do that by underlining them or just by changing its color is your decision. Underlining is just the classic way.
Gumbo
2009-03-02 22:25:07
+1
A:
Links should look distinguishable and clickable without having to hover your mouse over the screen. If you want to go away from the normal layout it's best to have a friend, one that's not tech savvy try out the site to see what they think. If they can navigate from page to page without problems or hiccups then the page is fine otherwise you should reconsider your approach. It's one nice thing to have a good looking site it's another to make it usable.
Jeremy Edwards
2009-03-02 22:39:21
A:
The page should be kept consistent - if one link is underlined then they all should be. If you don't like underlined links, no big deal - just keep them all the same for a better UI I think.
Levi Taylor
2009-03-02 22:41:34
A:
The important thing with all web design is clarity. If you do not underline your links then you should provide at least a consistent method of rendering (back or fore colour for example) and some intuative visual feedback to the user to indicate that the link is there such as underline on hover, mouse icon change or change in previous fore or back colour.
The best way to test these things is create a mockup and let your gran at it. If she understands first time then you have made it clear!
Happy coding.
Richard
2009-03-02 22:42:04
A:
I don't mind either way. Well almost.
At least, blue underlines are a clear signal that users identify as links. A well established convention as well as a browser default. That's why most Web design articles advice to avoid underline typographic effect.
And I dislike links that doesn't look like links. For example I recently found a site with black text and dark gray links (or was it the reverse?) of exact same font: it was hard to see links (unless scanning with the mouse! ack!).
Likewise, it is good practice to keep visited links distinguishable from unvisited ones: it is a good navigation help.
PhiLho
2009-03-02 22:48:53
+1
A:
If you only use colored text for links then the underline becomes unnecessary.
In cases where the design does not allow for a high contrast link color then you may need to use under line.
Leah
2009-03-02 22:50:39
+1
A:
Links don't have to be underlined -- I'd argue that underlining is itself hard to read and a bad default standard we've inherited.
But links should be consistent. In other words, whatever color or style your links are, stick with that same color and style throughout the site whenever possible. Don't make one thing clickable in red, and another thing clickable in green.
And yes, we break this rule on Stack Overflow sometimes. Notice that the title of this question is a clickable link, but it's not in the link color because that would be sort of .. obnoxious.
Jeff Atwood
2009-03-02 22:56:01
A:
It really depends if having them stand out on the page is a useful property to have.
Wikipedia for instance takes the line off, which is probably a good thing considering half of the page would be underlined if left to defaults.
Ant P.
2009-03-02 22:58:24
+1
A:
What I really hate are sites that underline text which aern't links... please don't do that.
alex
2009-03-02 23:59:15
A:
As long as it is obvious what is and isn't a link, I think getting rid of underlined links is perfectly acceptable.
Chris Papadopoulos
2010-02-08 21:30:02