on 8/29/02 8:41 AM, Stephen A. Fuqua at [EMAIL-REMOVED] mumbled something
> No doubt someone's already commented about the Win/IE6 bug--floating
> navigation is not flush with your line under the title (instead, floats
> probably 20px above the line in my browser).
> That aside, the page looks pretty good. I do have two small usability
> suggestions (that are CSS relevant):
> 1. Use styled lists instead of divs in the navigation, utilizing list-style
> attribute on ordered lists. If CSS is turned off, the navigation won't make
> a whole lot of sense with just the divs (all the text will run together). So
> use good structural HTML first, and then style it up.
I've been meaning to try this for a while. Yes, I do know that the links
semantically belong as a list; it's just something of a challenge to
actually implement, so I left it the way it was in the mean time.
> 2. To my understanding, the attraction of using the a:hover psuedo-class is
> to make the link more appealing, more inviting. Personally, changing the
> underline color doesn't do anything for me--its too subtle. Changing the
> font color or background color, or adding borders around the whole link...
> something like this is a much better way of indicating to me that I am
> hovering over a specific link and should look at that link's text, not the
> one next to it. comprende?
You're not the first to mention this... and I've always thought it did look
a little odd. The conundrum is finding a way that lets you have an effective
hover effect, WITH an effective active affect, WITHOUT using any underline
or border changes on active, because most people's browsers have the
slightly irritating focus box come up when they click, obscuring lines.
This was something of an experiment. But I guess you're right, it's not
accomplishing anything. I'll toy with it.