Re: The `link' face.

[Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> - while the "blue underlined" might be considered "the standard link
>   appearance", when I look at web pages in my browser (with default
>   config), I see that old-style plain pages indeed use "blue underlined"
>   (and even bold for debbugs), whereas more modern designs
>   (e.g. wikipedia and many more) use something more subdued such as just
>   "blue with an underline for mouse highlighting", or even "nothing +
>   mouse highlighting" when the context makes it clear that it's a link
>   (e.g. for tab-like thingies, or menus, ...).

There's obviously no way for us to know whether a button/link is going
to be used in a context where it's clear that it's clickable.

The "more modern designs" that you cite actuallly still use blue with an
underline, with one key difference: they use a less saturated blue, not
pure blue.  That clashes less with a white background, which might go a
long way to meeting your objections.

How bout changing the color of the link face, on white backgrounds, to
something like #244bbe?