↓ Skip to main content

Blue hypertext is a good design decision: no perceptual disadvantage in reading and successful highlighting of relevant information

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Blue hypertext is a good design decision: no perceptual disadvantage in reading and successful highlighting of relevant information
Published in
PeerJ, September 2016
DOI 10.7717/peerj.2467
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Gagl

Abstract

Highlighted text in the Internet (i.e., hypertext) is predominantly blue and underlined. The perceptibility of these hypertext characteristics was heavily questioned by applied research and empirical tests resulted in inconclusive results. The ability to recognize blue text in foveal and parafoveal vision was identified as potentially constrained by the low number of foveally centered blue light sensitive retinal cells. The present study investigates if foveal and parafoveal perceptibility of blue hypertext is reduced in comparison to normal black text during reading. A silent-sentence reading study with simultaneous eye movement recordings and the invisible boundary paradigm, which allows the investigation of foveal and parafoveal perceptibility, separately, was realized (comparing fixation times after degraded vs. un-degraded parafoveal previews). Target words in sentences were presented in either black or blue and either underlined or normal. No effect of color and underlining, but a preview benefit could be detected for first pass reading measures. Fixation time measures that included re-reading, e.g., total viewing times, showed, in addition to a preview effect, a reduced fixation time for not highlighted (black not underlined) in contrast to highlighted target words (either blue or underlined or both). The present pattern reflects no detectable perceptual disadvantage of hyperlink stimuli but increased attraction of attention resources, after first pass reading, through highlighting. Blue or underlined text allows readers to easily perceive hypertext and at the same time readers re-visited highlighted words longer. On the basis of the present evidence, blue hypertext can be safely recommended to web designers for future use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Spain 1 6%
United States 1 6%
Unknown 15 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 28%
Student > Master 4 22%
Researcher 3 17%
Lecturer 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 50%
Linguistics 4 22%
Computer Science 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,330,556
of 24,348,815 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#3,411
of 14,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,168
of 325,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#87
of 338 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,348,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 338 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.