“Click here” seems like a vestige of 1995. There are a lot of approaches for wording links; I favor complete thoughts that summarize the linked item. But “click here” is almost always the wrong choice, and there are some interesting arguments for in the replies.
Conventions change as we become more experienced. Right now, it’s still problematic because there are plenty of new users on the Web who are still unclear about how hypertext works.
When I joined IDC in 1998, their envelopes still proudly bore the dated declaration “Check us out on the World Wide Web http://www.idc.com”. They didn’t change them until some time in 2000, when it was seriously embarrassing.
That doesn’t mean we’re entirely sure how to use URL’s in our writing. I still use full URL’s in email
I recently had to decide how to show my Web address on my business cards. I chose “www.mediasavvy.com” over “http://mediasavvy.com”. Although the “www.” is unnecessary, “mediasavvy.com” by itself seems inadequate, and “http://” is still more fit for software than humans.
We’re still struggling with similar problems in writing telephone numbers. When long distance was a special occasion, putting the area code in parentheses made a lot more sense than it does now, when most cities have multiple area codes.
We have moved from electronic mail to e-mail to email in the last seven years. We no longer admonish print readers to “point your browser to” URL’s. The styles we use for writing on and about the Internet are in a state of flux and we need to reexamine them often.
Re: business cards…I think “mediasavvy.com” (that is, without the “www”) is nice. It’s short and slick. And “www” is redundant 80 percent of the time, anyway.
I thought about it. For some reason, with the [email protected] email address on the card, simply using “mediasavvy.com” seemed redundant in a way that http://www.mediasavvy.com didn’t. But the more I think about it, the more I think you’re right.