Writing links

Links are very important to users.

Users scan pages for links. Descriptive link copy is a call to action (to visit another page).

Links need to provide information for users to decide if they are worth following.

Friendly links (or not…)

The way links are written can make them more or less friendly:

Sometimes the unfriendliness in link copy is not obvious:

In this list of gardening links:

Writing links

A link is a window into the page that follows. The text for a link needs to be meaningful, descriptive and not too long. It needs to make sense on its own. Ideally the user will be able to take in the whole link without scanning left-to-right.

Users don't need to know the web address. If you are sure the page will be printed for reference you might include it as supplementary information, eg:

The right way to include a web address is without the prototcol (the http:// bit). Strictly speaking, the www bit is not needed. Leaving it out certainly makes the address easier to read. But, if the web address starts with something else (like www2), you will need to keep it in. Including web addresses in a sentence is awkward - eg: Gone with the Wind: the video (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6305123616/002-3991334-2532046?v=glance&n=404272) - and reduces readability. Scholarly sites may do this for completeness' sake.

Functional nastiness ruins good link copy

Links needs to be instantly identifiable as links. A colour scheme that disguises links can ruin decent link copy.

Links also needs to behave well. Links that open new browser windows left, right and centre for no good reason are unfriendly.

Underlining defines a link. Especially true if your links are not colored blue. (Who tried to click the underlined text, then?).

Top | Home