100842 - Links should not be underlined in printed output

Status: NEW

(Core :: Printing: Output, enhancement, P3)

Description

[Jason Goodman]

When a web page is printed or saved as postscript using File->Print, links to
other documents are colored and underlined, appearing just as they do in the
browser.  Netscape 4 removed the special formatting for links, so that they
appeared as normal text.

NS4's behavior is correct.  HTML documents should be rendered in a style which
is easily readable no matter what physical form the document takes.  Since you
can't click on a link on the printed page, marking the link with special
formatting is not helpful, and disrupts the appearance and readability of the text.

Many people write documents in HTML, then print them out to create printed and
on-line versions with identical content.  It's important that the printed
versions are clean and readable.

Comment 1

[Jess Collicott]

While I by no means know or set the standards, for conversation's sake I would
disagree. Having links rendered as 'normal' text could be confusing and
distracting, depending on the layout of the page. If the links are inline (body
text), then I can see the point. Otherwise, the colors and/or underline set them
apart and let the eye scan past/over them.

In any case, I would propose this functionality be left up to the web
developer/designer using CSS media types and DOM events, with the possible
availability of a client-side override. (IMHO)

Comment 2

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Please look at http://web.mit.edu/bzbarsky/www/ if you're interested.

It uses a print medium style sheet (you can even preview it with Moz).  If
people just use those, everything is peachy.

confirming this for dicussion, though

Comment 3

[Jason Goodman]

Tim Berners-Lee's hypertext style guide discusses the importance of writing
hypertext which is clear and readable when printed.  He says, "Try to avoid
references in the text to online aspects." 
(http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/Printable.html)

His specific examples discuss word choice when writing documents (i.e., don't
say "blah blah may be found _here_."), but the point is valid for browser
designas well.  Distinctive highlighting of links is a "reference to online
aspects",
and is confusing and meaningless in an offline context.

Thanks for the info about a workaround, though.

Comment 4

[Jess Collicott]

Having read the page referenced, I would definitely agree with being careful
when choosing word choice. Not using phrases such as 'click here' for the link
helps even on the web for general context communication as well as those who are
using accessibility software.

However, I think the point isn't as valid for the issue of printing HTML link
formatting. I tend to think Tim Berners-Lee holds this opinion as well since his
last bullet point on the page following 'Printable Hypertext' states:

"Why is it useful to keep the style defined in a separate document? here are
some reasons: 
..
* You can have separate style sheets for the printed version of a document."
<Using Style Sheets - http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/StyleSheets.html>

Thus, the example provided by Boris Zbarsky would follow out this thought. I
know using CSS for print, you can completely decide and adjust what is viewable
on the printed page.

I am not intending to be a stick-in-the-mud on this, however I do know there are
times when printing the link decoration as it is viewed in a web browser is
desired and important (personal experience included).  Automatically stripping
the link decoration out when printing would take away the choice from the viewer
to decided how they wanted to view the information.

Comment 5

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

One more thought.  The fix to this bug would be adding the following lines to
Mozilla's html.css:

@media print {
 a { text-decoration: none }
}

The same lines can be placed in a user's userContent.css file in the chrome/ dir
in the profile.  That rule should then automatically disable underlining,
overlining, and strikethrough on printed links.

In fact, it may be worthwhile adding that as an example to userContent.css.  If
someone ever feels like filing a bug on that and assigning to me, go for it.  :)

Comment 6

[rods (gone)]

taking

Comment 7

[Jonadab the Unsightly One (Nathan Eady)]

>     @media print {
>      a { text-decoration: none }
>     }

Shouldn't this be the default, and shouldn't the page's own stylesheets
be able to change that default, and shouldn't the user's stylesheets 
(or prefs or whatever) be able to override that change?

Or is that needless complexity?

Comment 8

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

> Shouldn't this be the default

That's what adding it to html.css means.

> and shouldn't the page's own stylesheets be able to change that default

Yes.  That's exactly how it would work.

> and shouldn't the user's stylesheets ...

Yes.  That's exactly how it would work (if the user used !important, of course)

All the framework is already in place.  Those three lines would just need to be
added to the file called html.css and it would all work.

Comment 9

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

I'd prefer sticxing the link colouring rules in an @media screen block, rather
than trying to cancel them for print.

(Maybe that should be "@media screen, projection, tty { ... }".)

Comment 10

[David Humphrey (:humph)]

This would be a great bug to do with my students, if you'd still accept the patch.  Before I take, worth doing or WONTFIX?

Comment 11

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

I honestly don't know.  People might just expect browsers to have whatever behavior they have at this point... :(

Maybe get UX to take a look?