Linking in articles

[Ted]

Am I doing some thing wrong or does this suck now. Every since the forum upgrade, when I click the link button (after highlighting the text I want to link), i then have to type and "=" after the "[url" and then paste a the link. It used to just create a popup box you pasted the link in and bam it was done. I find this more annoying. Am I doing it wrong?

[RonCo]

I think that's just how it works now. There are some nice things about this version (embedded videos, for example), but that's a real drawback.

[Ted]

Sometimes I just wonder who the heck is responsible for these kind of gross design flaws. Really the way it should work is that you highlight the text, click the link button, and WHATEVER you have currently copied to the clipboard (ctrl-c) most recently is pasted in as the link. No extra button clicks or keystrokes. Most intuitive, least extra steps. Before it was okay, although I'd argue having a pop up box for a link was a little much. But to go BACKWARDS from that to now clicking within the text and typing an "="?

This kind of stuff is everywhere too. Nothing works as well as it did ten years ago. Everything is more slipshod or wonky. Just confirms my suspicion that we are a civilization in a precipitous decline.

[recte44]

Click the hyperlink button first, then you can paste the link and enter the name

[JimBob2232]

This is why i usually just paste the link in my articles...

[RonCo]

Click the hyperlink button first, then you can paste the link and enter the name

Not really any difference in the amount of work.

[RonCo]

This is why i usually just paste the link in my articles...

Yeah...I do it both ways. Using the button does reduce the work (or at least the time) a little if I can remember to CTRL-V the link in.

[RonCo]

Mostly I just hope the URL linker does its thing for most players. Outside links have to be done manually, though.

[Ted]

Click the hyperlink button first, then you can paste the link and enter the name

That's only marginally better if you enter all links while typing, which I suppose I'll switch to. User interface software 101. Anything that makes you move your right hand (really either, but there are fewer left handed people) to the mouse more frequently is bad. If you must make a user divert to the mouse, try to make the keystrokes left hand dependent while the right key is off the keyboard. That's why the "=" sign way is atrocious.

Summary of right hand switches

Old way: go to mouse once to highlight text, go to other page to copy url, click hyperlink, enter text, back to keyboard
-one right hand move away, one back, two changes if linking while typing, NONE if you link after typing everything up. Mouse hand selects text, left hand copies and pastes links.

New way I've been doing: go to mouse to highlight text, click hyperlink, click next to "url" back to keyboard to type "=" and paste, back to mouse to move cursor to end of text, back to keyboard to type or use mouse to select next player to link
-right hand to mouse, back to keyboard, back to mouse, and then either to next player to link or back to keyboard to continue typing, min 3, maybe 4 changes depending of if you link while typing or after

Recte's way: typing with keyboard, switch to mouse copy link then click hyperlink button, back to keyboard to enter name and link details and tab down to enter button, continue typing
-one away, one back
If you enter all the links after typing something up (which i do to keep from losing my train of thought), you basically have to leave placeholders with this method to have any sort of efficiency. Basically mouse to placeholder, click button and first entry field with mouse, fill out and submit form with right hand on keyboard, back to mouse to select next placeholder. Either way, this is still more moves than the old linking after typing, which was again, NONE.

My proposed way (button automatically links highlighted text to already copied link)
No switches if you link after typing. (min switches if you link while typing, which is two) Use mouse to find links, select text, click buttons. Left hand copies and pastes. No switching at all, and you don't have to paste something into a popup form for literally no reason. Of course if you click the hyperlink button you want to paste a link.

I haven't developed user interfaces in 20 years, and that was just a brief course in college. And I still know this. FFS, this is the REASON ctrl c and ctrl v are copy and paste, so you don't have to move your right hand back and forth to the keyboard. It thus follows, that ANYTHING that requires repetitive use of ctrl c and ctrl v should never require you to move your hand back and forth to the keyboard. But everything is shitty and terribly designed today, so ...

[Ted]

Click the hyperlink button first, then you can paste the link and enter the name

Not really any difference in the amount of work.

Ron gets it. If you didn't want to read my really long breakdown of typing in a computer above, the basic gist is this: ctrl-c and ctrl-v are copy and paste for a reason. That's so it can be done with the left hand while the right hand mouses. If you have a copy and paste function that makes you put your right hand back in the keyboard, it's shit software.

[RonCo]

As a guy who used to hand-code his website and work in IT and software development fields, I've been working with and on the cusp of designing user interfaces for a long time.

It's always interesting to see usability practices that were "discovered" in the 90s (when Web use became the primary factor in so many things) get discarded. The idea that things like the flashy/blinky Notifications thing we've got going on, which is kitchy, but also bothersome and actually physically disturbing to certain people (depending on frequency of flash and intensity of light) are still even options now make me chuckle. But that's just one of many.

It's not that _everything_ is worse now, though. Word processors are pretty good...and if you can do macros, you can make them better (I should think about doing a macro for Word to put in links). And the Googles and Amazons of the world have made their position based on making things easy (while the Facebooks of the world have taken a different approach). But, yes, so many sites are not easy to figure out by intuition alone anymore.

Blah, blah, blah.

[Ted]

You're right Ron. Everything isn't worse. But so many things inexplicably are. So many more button licks, task switching, menus embedded in menus that require switching to navigate. Just so many basic "don'ts" are being violated. I feel like we're getting lots of new technology with amazing potential, but poor implementation.

ON the other hand, maybe the success you've pointed out with google and amazon makes the flawed stuff so more painfully obvious.

But speaking of amazon. Let's talk about prime video. Back when it was amazon instant video, it was amazingly easy to navigate. Small, branching menu, clearly organized categories.

Now it's just endless row after row of lists in no particular organized format except that prime stuff is listed first with some sort of very broken/not predictive at all "what you like" algorithm. You actually have to scroll down through all the different genres to get to the one that is actually the row of genres that lets you select the genre you want. Who the fuck thought this was a good idea? I can guarantee you it's made me buy less from prime video, because I have to work too hard to find anything.

Netflix has done something similar, as has hulu (although theirs is slightly better). Another visual interface I use, XBOX live, is just pictures and ads now, with more button clicks to get to any of the functionality you want. I feel like everything I use is more poorly organized and more clicks than it used to be. I feel like most people I talk to agree with me. Google is one huge exception, thankfully.

[RonCo]

A part of the shift has been to focus on phones and devices as the primary access points--which make keyboard work meaningless to the designer.

The idea of aps as services also change things because then part of the delivery requirement (business model) is to serve ads for those who aren't paying.

[recte44]

I don't write the code- go to the phpbb3 forums and perhaps someone there has a solution.

[Ted]

A part of the shift has been to focus on phones and devices as the primary access points--which make keyboard work meaningless to the designer.

The idea of aps as services also change things because then part of the delivery requirement (business model) is to serve ads for those who aren't paying.

I'm just getting old. I hate aps. Also, I hate when the "ap model" you are dsecribing is applied to things people use with controller or keyboard interfaces. It's a less efficient model that is maybe necessary for smartphones, but not much else. It's a one size fits all solution. Are more people really watching movies on their phones than tv's/laptops/other devices that would allow for a better interface? I find most shit on my phone useless simply because I find it either a) unnecessary and a way to throw away money or b) I'm too picky to use a picture menu.

One thing I've actually wondered about is will people with larger finger pads be at a competitive disadvantage going forward simply because most touch screen stuff on phones is too small for about a quarter of people to use easily.

Lastly, why are we still using mice and hitting shit with our fingers? How hard would it be to design an interface that knows what you're looking at? Most of us are fine with earpieces and headsets. Everything has a camera. Use the damn earpiece/headset to track head position, calibrate for the users eye relative to the device, use the camera to pick up eye movements. Bam. Visual "pointing". Why isn't this happening. Fuck touchscreens.

[Ted]

I don't write the code- go to the phpbb3 forums and perhaps someone there has a solution.

Dammit Recte, I'm being a grumpy old (I'm only 38, I will literally be unbearable in 20-30 more years) bastard. Get off my lawn.