Talk:Mystery meat navigation

Relevance of "click here"
The article doesn't strike me as a candidate for deletion. Independently of the deletion question, I propose removal of the "click here" section, or relocation to a different, more nearly relevant article, if one can be found. "Click here" navigation is unrelated to MMN. "Click here" links are deprecated because of literary bluntness and device-dependence, not because they involve hide-and-seek games with the user (which is the main criticism of MMN). Typically, "click here" links are part of sentences that accurately describe what would happen if the user were to click the link, so there is absolutely no "mystery", and no connection to MMN. Skyrmion71 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree. Sorry, I hadn't read this when I posted my comment, so I'm moving it here now. — Smjg (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Use of "click here" as link text is a completely different concept from mystery meat navigation. The essence of MMN is the absence of any immediately visible indication of where each link goes.  Whether "click here" has been used as link text is fundamentally distinct from the presence or absence of such an indication somewhere in the context of the link.  Indeed, the initial example link in W3C's own guidance has such indication, thus has nothing to do with MMN as such.  Indeed, my experience is that the majority of "click here" or "here" links are part of a sentence that indicates what the link leads to.


 * Of course, it's perfectly possible for a link that reads "Click here" to have no indication surrounding it of what it leads to (contrived example), and this may be considered a form of MMN, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. In any case, we need to refactor things a bit so as not to conflate the two concepts.  I might have another look at this when I've a bit more time. — Smjg (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As you said this is not always true:
 * {| class=wikitable


 * Indeed, my experience is that the majority of "click here" or "here" links are part of a sentence that indicates what the link leads to
 * }
 * In those cases where it is not true, it is important to correct it. And so the "Click here" section of the article should remain. Though it could be clarified to indicate that if the "click here" link is part of an explanatory sentence then it is OK. But even then it should only be used if using a better link name is not possible, or would be awkward. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In the scenario that there is no immediately visible indication of where the link goes, it's really just MMN just the same. Whether the hyperlink content is a meaningless graphic or meaningless text is irrelevant.  Why should there be a section about this specifically, when there are plenty of meaningless link texts out there, like "link" or "*" among other possibilities?  And the section here is about "Click here" as link text generally, not this particular scenario, and as such is off-topic. — Smjg (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * To put it differently, there are at least three scenarios:
 * Indication of target in the link text: Click here to view the article on mystery meat navigation
 * Indication of target not in the link text, but in the immediate context thereof: Click here to view the article on mystery meat navigation
 * No visible indication of target: Click here


 * "Click here" is a variant, but this distinction has no real relevance.
 * Mystery meat navigation is, by definition, a navigation UI in which the target of each link is not immediately apparent. This is the case only in scenario 3.  As such, the only content of that section that is relevant to MMN is that the phrase "Click here" is one example of what such a link may look like.  We don't need a whole section to tell us this - a simple mention in the lead section would suffice if any mention is needed at all.  On the other hand scenarios 1 and 2 aren't MMN at all, since the target of the link is immediately apparent.  In the real world, 1 and 2 are much more common than 3.  While the "Click here" section here fails to distinguish clearly the three scenarios, it is primarily about scenario 2, and thus is off-topic.  So I'm inclined to remove the section and just include it as an example in the lead of what an MMN link might look like. — Smjg (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The point of the section appears, at least to me, to be that scenario 2 is MMN as well, since the target of the link is not always immediately apparent: screen readers and print versions would experience MMN because the context gets lost, as it's not included with the link. --Pokechu22 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've always interpreted Vincent's definition as pertaining to the normal visual interface of a website. The linked-to page no longer has a definition on it, but here is the page on it that I remember from back in the day.  Unfortunately the Internet Archive has failed to archive the mouseover images, but from what I remember they were images of words describing where the link goes.
 * But you've got me thinking. I make out you mean scenario 2 essentially becomes MMN when the end user is using a screen reader or audio browser and cycling through the links.  Correct?  It certainly isn't clear that this is the point the section is making.  I still say this would be more on-topic on Web accessibility or WCAG rather than here.  Or maybe the section could be retitled as "Non-visual MMN" and reworded to focus more on the concept than on the specific phrase.
 * A further consideration is that Click here currently redirects here. Of course, this can be taken to RfD if necessary.  But scenario 1 is relevant to this title just as well, and falls under the scope of the W3C recommendation against it in that it makes assumptions about the end-user interface.
 * How do you mean the context gets lost in a print version? "Click here to view the article on mystery meat navigation" on paper is just as informative about the link target as it is on screen.
 * — Smjg (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A version of that article with working images seems to be archived here - you remembered correctly. And, yes, that's what I was thinking of with scenario 2 when using a screen reader.  The W3C article mentions this.
 * Regarding printing, I was assuming that there was an index giving a list of URLs associated with the link text at the bottom of the printed page, but that doesn't actually seem to be a thing. I don't know where I came up with that idea.  The W3C article doesn't mention printing at all, so the "Pages would also suffer when printed." statement doesn't seem to be supported by anything, and maybe should be removed. --Pokechu22 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I should've realised sooner that it's actually very different in one simple way. Classic MMN is a situation where link targets are not apparent when passively perusing the page, but become apparent when interacting with said links.  OTOH, "click here" links of type 2 are the reverse: link targets are apparent when passively perusing the page, but (to a blind user relying on audio) they are not apparent when interacting with the links.  (With "click here" links of type 3, OTOH, link targets aren't apparent either when passively perusing the page or when interacting with the links.)  Hmm.... — Smjg (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of interest, I found one tech writer who explicitly considers "click here" to be a form of MMN:

Given the discussion above, I feel it could do with some elaboration and maybe more sources, but I feel "click here" does seem to be within the scope of this article. As there has been no discussion for nearly 2 years, I propose removing the hatnote.Cnbrb (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's probably good enough for removing the off-topic. I'd be a bit worried about CITOGENESIS since that source is from 2019, but since this is a fairly low-stakes situation it's probably not a problem. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did MacDonald cite Wikipedia? I hadn't noticed, or I wouldn't have cited her! I seems like a good enough source. Cnbrb (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not for that claim (she mentions it in a few places later on, which is of course entirely reasonable), but the original context of citogenesis was about Wikipedia being used without being cited and then that being the source of a citation later on. I think this is a good enough citation for here, but it would be nice to also have an older one to go along with it. --Pokechu22 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this apply to Web browser design also?
Web browsers since the 1990s have moved more and more in a direction of replacing buttons that are marked with readable text labels with buttons that are marked with bizarre and unintuitive little ideograms. We have written languages for a reason. How about a "reload" button that actually says "reload," instead of a made-up symbol that might as well be a string of Egyptian hieroglyphs? "Mr. Johnson, I need you to click on the 'home' button. That's the button that's marked bird-squiggly line-ankh-boat..."

Is there a term for this phenomenon when it is applied to Web browser design? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The obvious term is “mystery meat navigation”. It is increasingly prevalent in nearly all applications, not just browsers, and increases the learning curve. At least in some applications, you can change the size of the navigation icons, and you can specify that each icon gets a name. This is just another evil influence emanating from Steve Jobs and many other people for whom a “clean” appearance trumps usability.   Solo Owl   02:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Yeah, Steve Jobs went to the dark side as he got older. I recently got an ipad, and the lack of text labels in certain places is beyond irritating. And there is no setting to add text labels. I remember using Macs back in the 1980s and early 1990s, and a big selling point was ease of use, and clear menus with text labels. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I may get crucified for this, but I believe that as long as the icon is intuitive (i.e. an arrow pointing backwards, an arrow looping in on itself, etc.), there is no point of a textual label. Or for example even showing a globe to represent language selection to people who may not speak the language the website is in. Fuj1n (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is exceptionally difficult to choose an icon that will have the same "intuitive" meaning for everybody in the world, and not (say) just America. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Image map
Following on from the above discussion, is an HTML image map an example of mystery meat navigation? I have looked around for reliable sources that explicitly describe image maps as a type of MMN, but have not found any. Can anyone find a reliable source that covers this? I think it's quite important as an image map of the moon has been given as a practical example in the lead of this article, but it's not actually supported by the text. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No.  A particular HTML image map may be an example of MMN, but HTML image maps generally speaking are not.  It depends on the content of the image and whether it adequately and accurately describes what you'll get by clicking on a particular part of it.  Probably the main use of image maps is to create a graphical menu; such graphical menus would typically meet this criterion.  DVD menus are a good example of this: when playing a video DVD on a computer, the menu screen functions as an image map.  As an extreme example, you could take a screenshot of a textual web page and recreate the hyperlinks by making it into an image map; this screenshot image map will be no more MMN than the original web page.  Fundamentally, whether a piece of web content is MMN is independent of whether it is textual or graphical. — Smjg (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)