Sending users to our documentation

i would suggest you explicitly add wiki to the top of the pages
and to make it blatantly clear that tips tutorials and documentation are clickable resources and not decoration/verbiage in the header

perhaps also add a single landing page that lists topics/problems
and gives links (perhaps in a table by the 4 categories) to that info

Which pages are you talking about? Can you be a little clearer?

OK I’ve been very blatant, assuming you are talking now about the Forum header - I agree it would be more normal for links to be underlined, so I have now made them so. Depends if other people like it, too. Do we really need the “underline” word as now?

I think more than three links could be confusing. I think the Wiki tutorials link is fine. I’m not quite so sure about the link to “Tips”. We considered a troubleshooting page or category on the Wiki but it kind of cut across the existing structure. I think the current front page is in essence a mini troubleshooter. Maybe it would be better to link there instead of Tips?

I’d caution against spending too much time on this. Most users are I think still just going to ask before looking.


I’m +1 for the links in the header to be underlined.

How about replacing the “Tips” link with a link to FAQ?
Personally I’d like the FAQ’s to be expanded to include answers to more of the common problems (such as “Why does all sound playback stop working when I connect my USB device?”). What would be the chance of having some sort of active web page/searchable FAQ instead of the single static page?

there are 5 helpful links at the bottom which are easy to miss

changing the links at the top makes it more obvious that they are links to helpful places

why not put all the links at the top and the bottom
at least some people will use them and avoid some needless repetitive questions

+1 for the suggetion to go to faqs
i would add a link for all useful places

At the bottom of what?

bottom of the pages with the top i think
maybe it is just message pages in the forum

I largely agree about the FAQs on the main site having become less relevant. I don’t have a lot of time to address them and the whole thing is a mess with the partly duplicated FAQ in the Manual which ought to be where the development is done. When 2.0 finally comes I would prefer to have the FAQ only in the Manual, but the big problem with that is that there is very little interest in translating the Manual, whereas the FAQs on the main site are more actively translated and the current translators are familiar with the gettext translation system used there.

I have got some ideas for new FAQs listed in the Manual, including the one you mentioned. Feel free to add some ideas.

At the moment I have a mild preference to relink “Tips” in the Forum header to the Wiki front page rather than our FAQ, at least until the FAQ can be a bit more targeted.

There is a Google search box on the main web site though it’s quite coarse (defaults to main site) and allows you to choose only combined (Manual/Forum and main Wiki).


I agree with Steve +1 for underlining the links.

Personally I still think the links in that dark blue colour on the darkish blue header background do not stand out nearly enough to be clearly visible - remember we had a long discussion about this a while back - regarding colours and font size for the link text.)

Whomper, I think the “5 helpful links” you are referring to are the cunning email signature that Stevethefiddle constructed for himself. He posts so frequently that you see these links most of the time :ugeek:


-1 on making the font size any larger. I already had increased it further after those discussions, and if we keep the current extra text then we’ve already spilled over into an extra line.

I would prefer A:links are blue, which is standard practice (they are a quite gaudy colour if you hover over them). For that reason I don’t like the “Advanced Search” link being white (same colour as “Audacity Forum”) but I have underlined it now. Rather than make A:links a non-standard colour so that some people will think they aren’t links, do we want to change the background colour of the header? If so, to what?


They certainly stand out as links if you hover over them, but people will only hover over them if they realise that might be links.
I think the underlining definitely makes them look more like links than without underlining, but on my monitor they don’t particularly stand out. Perhaps a bit more purpley? (that’s probably not a real word - a bit of red in the colour)

The text outside the links used to be a pink/purple colour if you recall, and to be seen against the blue it had to be very much more pink than blue. What I think you are suggesting will be less easy to see, and will have the disadvantage that it is no longer an expected colour for a link (plus on the Wiki, red links are broken). Clearly we have some users who don’t even understand links in forum messages, and I think what is in the header now is pretty obviously a link (“click the underlined links” is visible enough).

This has never been easy given the background colour, so the obvious thing to do is change the background. I assume we can change the background though I haven’t figured how yet; but we can certainly change the background of the text, so that the expected colour for A:links stands out. Do you want to be as gaudy as that?

Any comments about linking to main site FAQ vs front page of Wiki?


Can you return the background colour to blue and just make the letters white?

Yes, the selective background colour looks terrible doesn’t it? And yes, making the links white would be tasteful, and match with “Advanced Search” except that a) it’s not the correct colour for a link; b) it’s the same colour as the “Audacity Forum” header :confused: … We may suss out a white underline is a link but it’s not us we have to convince.

I’m still going to try changing the background first.


for a brief time
the links were on a yellow background
which HELPED A WHOLE LOT TO SEE THEM and understand that they are clickable links


It also looked like something I would design after I went off my medication.


<<<a) it’s not the correct colour for a link;>>>

You may be the only person in 24 time zones worried about that.

<<<it’s the same colour as the “Audacity Forum” header>>>

And it could be argued even more important and needing a brighter “colour” like white.

I was shopping for sewing supplies and I overheard a highly experienced sales associate helping a buyer find just the right matching colour thread for her project. “You know,” she said, rapidly running out of patience, “there’s nothing wrong with white.”


How about 230, 230, 230 in 255 rgb colourspace? That’s 90% white. The header will be brighter, the links will stand out and everybody can sleep tonight.


I’ve definitely had several users telling me they would never have worked out the white “Advanced Search” was a link - even if underlined.

And you have got me on a hobbyhorse as I never liked this background - it isn’t a colour that’s part of our logo, as Vaughan once pointed out.

Is this the header background colour we are talking about, or a link colour?

What would be wrong with a header background of #f3f3ff which is (243,243,255)? That is the background colour for the Wiki front page. Too much like the rest of the Forum? Or some other light colour? Yes the white and yellow text and links would have to change - good!

Apart from Whomper, no-one else wants the entire table background that has “Click the underlined…Documentation!” (or just the text background) in a different colour?

And I still say all this is sterile because if we had blinking red and yellow flashers for the links some people still wouldn’t click on them. :smiley:


<<<Is this the header background colour we are talking about, or a link colour? >>>

Link colour. Darker than the header, but still much brighter than it is now.

<<<I’ve definitely had several users telling me they would never have worked out the white “Advanced Search” was a link - even if underlined.>>>

Shall we look at the links in the London Times? The New York times and the Washington Post use a tasteful navy blue for important links, but they’re starting life from a white “newspaper” page. New York times doesn’t even do that for all their links.

243,243,255 That’s a very light perrywinkle blue. You want to put that in the background and make the links in Navy Blue?

Any way to post a mockup and not have to jigger the html each time?


Are we trying to help the less able users? Then the London Times is irrelevant. Their clientele will find the links anyway.

…which we aren’t. That’s the crux of the problem. Whenever the background was chosen, there was no plan to put extensive custom links in it.

I’m strongly suggesting we change the background to some light colour. 243,243,255 happens to be the Wiki background colour. The links would be blue of some flavour (and something else on hover if wanted). The text would probably be black, but with a light background there is much more flexibility.

Possibly. Is this something that a high-end image editor could do (figure out the background colour, make it a layer then change it)? Otherwise it means putting up a mock web page somewhere. It can’t be done in the ACP. It would mean going on to the server, and manipulating duplicate pages.

Ultimately I agree the links aren’t quite the right colour, but it’s near impossible to make a blue work against that background. I agree the links darken the header, but so does the dark blue colour of the logo (which was never intended for the current background).

I could try making the links more royal blue like the colour of “Audacity” in the logo but unless the links were
thick font, I very much doubt it would help that much.