[ghmerrill]

Originally Posted by phillipgessert

I think by saying you knew you could click because it was a hypertext doc you probably basically meant that you knew you could interact/navigate because you were within a system that allowed for that, right?

Well, yeah, exactly. That's been the point. As part of that background knowledge/assumption/attention you're predisposed to look for things that indicate navigational possibilities -- whether conventional ones or not. The other side of the argument (which we've seen) is where an explicit argument has to be mounted that you'll never think that something like a distinctive symbol appearing in places where a link would naturally appear is a link indicator. This then (under the assumption you note) appears as a kind of peculiar argumentum ad stupiditum argument where you (a) grant the awareness and sensitivity of the reader to be looking for navigational opportunities and clues, and then (b) deny that the reader will act on that awareness and sensitivity. Incoherence of this sort is rarely convincing.

Also, by the same sort of argument based on knowledge/prior experience, the asterisk comes out a winner since for centuries it's been used as a footnote indicator. In fact, if you look to see what typical footnote indicators are, the asterisk is regarded as the most common one. So any reader inexperienced in eText (or whatever we want to call it) would almost certainly think of the asterisk as a footnote indicator and -- with your background assumptions about being in a eText navigational environment -- be inclined to click it. Or at least that sort of claim is at least as powerful and believable as the contrary ones being made.

My point just being not everyone will know that.

Will "know" WHAT? What's the realistic scenario here? We've got someone who just bought a Kindle book INSTEAD (often) of the paperback version and knows full well what to expect in terms of that. Or are we restricting these scenarios to first-time users and buyers? Who -- in the scenario in question -- will NOT know that? Sure there are really BAD interfaces that inhibit their own use. But I don't think the suggestions I've been considering are among those -- they're just different. I'm not without experience in designing and implementing complex systems that need to be navigated by naive users and with the goal of not requiring them to take training or read through documentation in order to quickly see the navigational methods. That's one reason I wring my hands about this stuff. I don't offer that as evidence of anything, but just a hint that I'm not insensitive to the user/reader side of things, and across diverse user groups.

Jellby's point above is sound in general, but e.g. my preferred device has no touch at all, and I could see a less savvy user being less inclined to think "I can swipe therefore I can tap" on a device that allows neither.

My preferred device as well, but that's only because I habitually (from years of software development/testing/documentation) work with a very large monitor that lacks touch capabilities. I'm perfectly okay with touch (or voice, or telepathy) if it's supported in a way that allows me to have multiple large windows displayed simultaneously. But that's way outside the usual Kindle reader scenario. A lot of what's being said here is really just personal preference and run of the mill habit being disguised as appeals to standards and buttressed by vaguely supported claims. It's just a dressed up version of "Well, I like x and it's what I'm used to" with the addition of "And so what you're suggesting seems dangerous and counterproductive to me." Okay. People get to say that.

In any case personally I'm pretty firmly in the underlines camp so naturally I'm a little biased.

Biased is fine. I've nowhere suggested that underlining isn't an effective way to accomplish the desired goals. I've nowhere suggested that people shouldn't use it in the traditional way. I just don't think it's dangerous/immoral/ineffective to employ alternatives which -- by the very considerations you've offered -- appear to be reasonable and to have very reasonable expectations for success.