Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>People don't expect a pop-up on hover - I'd definitely go with the click.</p> <p><strong>Edit / addition:</strong> think about the website you visit every day - text and pictures are (generally) static, and hovering, at most, changes the colour or add underline to a link, or displays a small menu of clickable links.</p> <p>When clicking on a link, you expect something to happen - a redirect to another page, a pop-up box with information, a form being submitted, etc.</p> <p>I'm not saying this is the best way to do things, but it <strong>is</strong> the way 99% of the web works, and asking users to deal with pop-up boxes on hovers or the like is a good way to turn them away. I know I personally don't read any pages with double-underlined links; it's a good indication that an accidental break in scrolling to read the content might end up with my mouse over a link with an advertisement tied to it.</p> <p>Having a little graphic beside clickable text, or otherwise denoting that clicking will lead to more information is a great way of providing contextual information without frustrating people. For most of the world, pop-ups without clicking still == advertisements or spyware.</p> <p><strong>Edit / clarification:</strong> I don't mean a pop-up in the <strong>new window</strong> sense, just a lightbox-style javascript pop-up. Don't take the user away from the page, and give them a very visible button to click to close the pop-up. I guess what I'm saying is that people don't expect something to happen without clicking, especially not if it's going to take up more space on the screen.</p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload