smart-underline

Thanks for the suggestion. We’ll be taking a crack at descender-heavy links [1], so this may come in handy! [1]: https://github.com/EagerIO/SmartUnderline/issues/1

I appreciate your feedback. No doubt on some level this comes down to aesthetic preference. I’m curious though, on the before-and-after examples on the homepage [1] do you feel that all of the afters are worse? You and devindotcom did indeed bring up some good points, particularly about descender-heavy links, something I plan to take a crack at [2]. But I’m curious if you feel the entire strategy is flawed or if there’s just more work to be done. On a related note: if you’ve used/seen it, how do you feel about links in iOS 8 Safari? How do you feel about this before-and-after [3] (screenshot of the first paragraph of the blog post)? [1]: https://eager.io/showcase/SmartUnderline/ [2]: https://github.com/EagerIO/SmartUnderline/issues/1 [3]: http://postimg.org/image/rgfx5icq9/

I think this is a very reasonable criticism, particularly about words like “piggy”—no doubt typography is *ing hard. Like is often the case with design, there are trade-offs. In this case I think the readability improvements to links with descenders outweighs the visual cue / scannability of links, particularly because I think links with more-descenders-than-non are not as common. An interesting experiment might be to try to turn off the effect on words which fail some check (a high percentage of descender glyphs, for example). I created an issue on GitHub [1]—definitely something worth exploring. Thanks! [1]: https://github.com/EagerIO/SmartUnderline/issues/1