In my style sheet I've set the links like this:

a:link{
text-decoration:none;
}

I did that for the pseudo classes and I also did that for the image
tag. Yet there are still link lines around the images. Why?

It's on this page:

http://www.mamacitta.com/index.php?pageId=33

lawrence wrote:
[color=blue]
> In my style sheet I've set the links like this:
>
> a:link{
> text-decoration:none;
> }
>
> I did that for the pseudo classes and I also did that for the image
> tag.[/color]

Image element, you mean. The tag is what delineates the element.
[color=blue]
> Yet there are still link lines around the images.[/color]

That's called a border. I hate to be pedantic, but if you learn the
terminology, you'll get help faster. In this case, a search for css
border might have given you a clue to try:

a img { border: none }
[color=blue]
> It's on this page:
>
> http://www.mamacitta.com/index.php?pageId=33[/color]

<quote>
Whoa. Serious misconfiguration, dude. The software is looking
everywhere for a file called McControllerForAll.php but not finding
it. It needs that file in a big way. Spelling is case senstive. If
somehow the file is lost, you can always find a new copy at Public
Domain Software
</quote>

First, that's a stupid error message. Second, it was sent to me with
status code 200. Why was the code 200, and not 404 Not found? Finally,
you posted without including a url, then sent a broken one. You're
making it difficult to help you.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

On 28 Jun 2004 18:03:28 -0700, lawrence <lkrubner@geocities.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> In my style sheet I've set the links like this:
>
> a:link{
> text-decoration:none;
> }
>
> I did that for the pseudo classes and I also did that for the image
> tag. Yet there are still link lines around the images. Why?
>
> It's on this page:
>
> http://www.mamacitta.com/index.php?pageId=33[/color]


a img {border: 0}

But how will the user know it is a link??

lawrence wrote:
[color=blue]
> In my style sheet I've set the links like this:
>
> a:link{
> text-decoration:none;
> }
>[/color]

You're trying to remove the visual feedback by which users can recognize
a link apart from normal text. I don't recommend this.
[color=blue]
> I did that for the pseudo classes and I also did that for the image
> tag. Yet there are still link lines around the images. Why?[/color]


Again, how are your visitors going to recognize, to distinguish
clickable images from non-clickable links? What you are trying to do
goes against usability of a web page.
The default value of links in browsers is to underline links and to
create a blue color (again, that's a browser default in most browsers)
border around clickable images. Going against such browser standards is
often risky, not recommendable; at least it requires careful thinking to
avoid creating usability confusion.

DU

DU <drunclear@hotWIPETHISmail.com> wrote in message news:<cbqmct$e02$1@news.eusc.inter.net>...[color=blue]
> lawrence wrote:
>[color=green]
> > In my style sheet I've set the links like this:
> >
> > a:link{
> > text-decoration:none;
> > }
> >[/color]
>
> You're trying to remove the visual feedback by which users can recognize
> a link apart from normal text. I don't recommend this.
>[color=green]
> > I did that for the pseudo classes and I also did that for the image
> > tag. Yet there are still link lines around the images. Why?[/color]
>
>
> Again, how are your visitors going to recognize, to distinguish
> clickable images from non-clickable links? What you are trying to do
> goes against usability of a web page.
> The default value of links in browsers is to underline links and to
> create a blue color (again, that's a browser default in most browsers)
> border around clickable images. Going against such browser standards is
> often risky, not recommendable; at least it requires careful thinking to
> avoid creating usability confusion.[/color]

But lots of sites uses images for links, and that is what this site is
doing. And the site owner didn't want ugly blue lines around her
images.

www.mamacitta.com

lkrubner@geocities.com (lawrence) wrote in message news:<da7e68e8.0407111202.86679ea@posting.google.c om>...
[color=blue]
> But lots of sites uses images for links,[/color]

Agreed.
[color=blue]
> the site owner didn't want ugly blue lines around her images.[/color]

The eternal question - Do we follow _everything_ the site owner wants,
and how far do we take this into the relams of <blink> and rainbow
..GIF <hr>'s ?

That said, there's no reason why your CSS needs to be
a:link img { "ugly blue lines" }
or even
a:hover img { "ugly blue lines" }

lawrence wrote:
[color=blue]
> DU <drunclear@hotWIPETHISmail.com> wrote in message news:<cbqmct$e02$1@news.eusc.inter.net>...
>[color=green]
>>lawrence wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>In my style sheet I've set the links like this:
>>>
>>>a:link{
>>>text-decoration:none;
>>>}
>>>[/color]
>>
>>You're trying to remove the visual feedback by which users can recognize
>>a link apart from normal text. I don't recommend this.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I did that for the pseudo classes and I also did that for the image
>>>tag. Yet there are still link lines around the images. Why?[/color]
>>
>>
>>Again, how are your visitors going to recognize, to distinguish
>>clickable images from non-clickable links? What you are trying to do
>>goes against usability of a web page.
>>The default value of links in browsers is to underline links and to
>>create a blue color (again, that's a browser default in most browsers)
>>border around clickable images. Going against such browser standards is
>>often risky, not recommendable; at least it requires careful thinking to
>>avoid creating usability confusion.[/color]
>
>
> But lots of sites uses images for links, and that is what this site is
> doing. And the site owner didn't want ugly blue lines around her
> images.
>
> www.mamacitta.com[/color]


Lots of sites uses images; some are clickable links and some are not.
How are users going to distinguish, differentiate them *easily* without
having to examine the source code? That is what matters here. Clear
navigation aids have been exhaustively discussed before in website
tutorials and newsgroup discussions. Users don't want to spend a split
second on figuring out if this image or that one is clickable and if it
opens a new window, etc... A webpage design should be user-friendly on this.

Uglyness of borders around an image could be quite subjective here. For
sure such issue should be secondary to usability of a webpage/site.

DU

DU <drunclear@hotWIPETHISmail.com> wrote in message news:<cd0sju$ngo$1@news.eusc.inter.net>...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>I did that for the pseudo classes and I also did that for the image
> >>>tag. Yet there are still link lines around the images. Why?
> >>
> >>
> >>Again, how are your visitors going to recognize, to distinguish
> >>clickable images from non-clickable links? What you are trying to do
> >>goes against usability of a web page.
> >>The default value of links in browsers is to underline links and to
> >>create a blue color (again, that's a browser default in most browsers)
> >>border around clickable images. Going against such browser standards is
> >>often risky, not recommendable; at least it requires careful thinking to
> >>avoid creating usability confusion.[/color]
> >
> >
> > But lots of sites uses images for links, and that is what this site is
> > doing. And the site owner didn't want ugly blue lines around her
> > images.
> >
> > www.mamacitta.com[/color]
>
>
> Lots of sites uses images; some are clickable links and some are not.
> How are users going to distinguish, differentiate them *easily* without
> having to examine the source code? That is what matters here. Clear
> navigation aids have been exhaustively discussed before in website
> tutorials and newsgroup discussions. Users don't want to spend a split
> second on figuring out if this image or that one is clickable and if it
> opens a new window, etc... A webpage design should be user-friendly on this.
>
> Uglyness of borders around an image could be quite subjective here. For
> sure such issue should be secondary to usability of a webpage/site.[/color]

I find that website owners that are going to do a good bit of the work
of building their sites tend to learn a lot in the first few weeks.
Experience is the best teacher. There are certain lessons that they
don't learn easily from the designer they are working with, but learn
easily from experience itself. They also take feedback from friends
better than they take feedback from me. Many times I've said "That
won't work" and they think I'm being obstinate, so I go ahead and do
it as they request. 6 weeks later their close friend tells them they
find the site confusing - then they ask me to make the change I
suggested 6 weeks before. Personally, I don't view the learning curve
of a client as something negative - it's just something that is there,
something that needs to be worked with. They need to be given time to
learn things.

The site I pointed to is uniquely bad because images are reused for
different links, something I've never seen done on any other website.
So what? Within 2 weeks, one of the clients business partners will
very likely say to her "You've got to be kidding!" And then the site
will be made right.