Normal
Do you have any documentation on these "legal reasons"? i'd be interested to read it. I think treating external links as "dangerous" on a site full of user generated content is a bad idea across the board, your implying your link writing users as untrustworthy & that you have no confidence in them from the outset. On another note i think having a warning page is largely treating the link clicking user like an moron, borderline condescending in some cases. Generally when people click a link they have a rough idea where they expect to be sent from the context of the text / page / link text itself. This also makes me wonder how Wikipedia have survived so long w/ little more than an icon next to external links (i guess the same question could be applied to Google too) as opposed to a full on warning page. Im also not aware of any American laws (the site is hosted on an american server iirc) that would require this (in the same vein as European laws around cookies) but id be interested to read the legal text of any laws that do given i haven't followed it closely for quite some time now. The only places ive really seen these kind of warning pages used wholesale are places like torrenting sites where there really isnt that assumption of good intention on behalf of the users, either implied or expected.Thinking about this some, couldn't vendors just put a link to their site in their signature? Circling back to user experience, what does clickable vendor banners really add to it?
Do you have any documentation on these "legal reasons"? i'd be interested to read it. I think treating external links as "dangerous" on a site full of user generated content is a bad idea across the board, your implying your link writing users as untrustworthy & that you have no confidence in them from the outset. On another note i think having a warning page is largely treating the link clicking user like an moron, borderline condescending in some cases. Generally when people click a link they have a rough idea where they expect to be sent from the context of the text / page / link text itself. This also makes me wonder how Wikipedia have survived so long w/ little more than an icon next to external links (i guess the same question could be applied to Google too) as opposed to a full on warning page. Im also not aware of any American laws (the site is hosted on an american server iirc) that would require this (in the same vein as European laws around cookies) but id be interested to read the legal text of any laws that do given i haven't followed it closely for quite some time now. The only places ive really seen these kind of warning pages used wholesale are places like torrenting sites where there really isnt that assumption of good intention on behalf of the users, either implied or expected.
Thinking about this some, couldn't vendors just put a link to their site in their signature? Circling back to user experience, what does clickable vendor banners really add to it?
