MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - underline links removed i sigil but showing in kindle previewer

ghmerrill · 09-28-2020, 02:20 PM

Hoping to see if there's more insight to be got here ...

I don't believe that the original request to remove underlines from links is totally wacky. I'd like to do it myself. I SUSPECT that Amazon (in it's conversion to Kindle process) is forcing this in a way that has no work-around, but if there is one then I'd like to use it. I'm not going to take a fanatical ideological stand on this use of underlines on links, but ...

First, they're ugly. Yes, that's something of a value judgement, but I can't believe that most people don't agree with it. Second, the universal argument provided in favor of keeping the links is specious -- at least if certain style policies are followed in a document. The argument is always a variant of "But if you don't underline them, then the reader won't know they're links!!". Um ... not quite correct. Because ...

Initially, recognize that what many now regard as a natural phenomenon (or perhaps even an aspect of natural or moral law at this point) is that underlines in etext MEAN its a hyperlink. Actually, however, that's just a CONVENTION. Where there's a convention there are almost certainly equally acceptable alternatives.

In my case, references to footnotes (more properly "notes") and to bibliographic entries (let's call them "bibrefs") will ALL be indicated by a superscript asterisk -- always and without fail. Asterisks occur nowhere else in the book except as note/bibref indicators (and in fact, conceptually, a bibref is just a kind of note). So the reader will (once instructed, at least) KNOW that a superscript '*' MEANS "Here's a LINK". There's nothing magic about using a numeral or underlining or (excessive) underlined numeral to indicate a footnote, end note, or reference citation. And this approach is fully general and without exception (in my book). For devices displaying color, then yes, I do make the asterisk the traditional blue. For devices not displaying color, it's still an asterisk (as, similarly, with lines in the now traditional approach, which are still lines and also not blue).

So that's the case (or a case) for underlining not being necessary, and for the elimination of underlining not affecting functionality or usability. Whew!! Glad that's over with. As I say, I can LIVE with the silly one-character underline under an asterisk -- but it is silly and it is ugly and (in my case) it accomplishes nothing beyond what the bare asterisk itself does. One convention rather than another, and as simple a one as well.

In such circumstances I'd prefer NOT to live with the underlining of links. Is there a way? At this point, any appropriate answer to that question is not of the form "You shouldn't want to do that." Again, I suspect that Amazon (employing the "You shouldn't want to ..." thinking, and maybe trying to "help" a less than careful author) is forcing it upon us. But if there is a way, I'd like to hear it. Thanks.

09-28-2020, 02:20 PM	#10
ghmerrill Connoisseur Posts: 72 Karma: 10 Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Central NC Device: Various	Hoping to see if there's more insight to be got here ... I don't believe that the original request to remove underlines from links is totally wacky. I'd like to do it myself. I SUSPECT that Amazon (in it's conversion to Kindle process) is forcing this in a way that has no work-around, but if there is one then I'd like to use it. I'm not going to take a fanatical ideological stand on this use of underlines on links, but ... First, they're ugly. Yes, that's something of a value judgement, but I can't believe that most people don't agree with it. Second, the universal argument provided in favor of keeping the links is specious -- at least if certain style policies are followed in a document. The argument is always a variant of "But if you don't underline them, then the reader won't know they're links!!". Um ... not quite correct. Because ... Initially, recognize that what many now regard as a natural phenomenon (or perhaps even an aspect of natural or moral law at this point) is that underlines in etext MEAN its a hyperlink. Actually, however, that's just a CONVENTION. Where there's a convention there are almost certainly equally acceptable alternatives. In my case, references to footnotes (more properly "notes") and to bibliographic entries (let's call them "bibrefs") will ALL be indicated by a superscript asterisk -- always and without fail. Asterisks occur nowhere else in the book except as note/bibref indicators (and in fact, conceptually, a bibref is just a kind of note). So the reader will (once instructed, at least) KNOW that a superscript '*' MEANS "Here's a LINK". There's nothing magic about using a numeral or underlining or (excessive) underlined numeral to indicate a footnote, end note, or reference citation. And this approach is fully general and without exception (in my book). For devices displaying color, then yes, I do make the asterisk the traditional blue. For devices not displaying color, it's still an asterisk (as, similarly, with lines in the now traditional approach, which are still lines and also not blue). So that's the case (or a case) for underlining not being necessary, and for the elimination of underlining not affecting functionality or usability. Whew!! Glad that's over with. As I say, I can LIVE with the silly one-character underline under an asterisk -- but it is silly and it is ugly and (in my case) it accomplishes nothing beyond what the bare asterisk itself does. One convention rather than another, and as simple a one as well. In such circumstances I'd prefer NOT to live with the underlining of links. Is there a way? At this point, any appropriate answer to that question is not of the form "You shouldn't want to do that." Again, I suspect that Amazon (employing the "You shouldn't want to ..." thinking, and maybe trying to "help" a less than careful author) is forcing it upon us. But if there is a way, I'd like to hear it. Thanks.