[thesite] some constructive criticism

[aardvark]

> From: "isaac" <isaac at lists.evolt.org>
> 
> you know the hover style that is popular on trendy blogs. you mouseover a
> link, and it "inverts"... ie, the background around the text itself is dark.
> not the entire content area. that make sense? zeldman probably does it. if
> he doesn't, WSP or ALA do. if they don't kottke would. maybe they all do it.

ahhh... like the W3C site (w3.org)... odd how i know that over 
WSP, ALA, etc... how sad am i?

> but, don't worry about that anyway: i think underline is our best bet... i
> know it's so standard, but it'll avoid people saying "it's hard to tell
> what;s a link and what's not".

agreed...

> ie, i was reading scott's anniv article, and he'd used bold and a link in
> one sentence. it was not immediately obviously that the link was, err, a
> link. and we really can't use a colour instead. green will get lost, red
> will look festive (ugh, festive!), blue will be jarring, etc.

not festive !?!