The underlines being dotted, it's closer to an <abbr> element (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ab...), which does not act as a link.
User will click/tap and the modal of the gif will show
The GIFs add pop, but the intent is to clarify. How does showing this info. on onHover or onClick in any UX achieve that result?
It doesn't.
As designed, it's an ad. It is. Look at it.
If I'm comparing a product with a full page of features, I'm going to be scrolling up and down. The one thing I absolutely won't do is hover over 16 onHover information panels while trying to compare and contrast an extensive set of features, costs, and licenses.
I'm just going to get aggravated that the information I need to make a decision keeps disappearing from view when I click or hover elsewhere.
Also, that's the kind of page you print and underline and circle things on, and give to your boss as a reason for purchase. If half the information is invisible when the page is printed, what use is it?
It's not like you can easily compare the prices between two different products in the same segment.
It's an ad. Embrace it. Leaving out the GIFs doesn't make it less of an ad. It just makes it… a worse ad?
Also, does your boss not have a computer?
I'm not referring to the page as an ad, but fair enough. I see him applying a pop-up advertisement using the wrong UX element to a grid of information that doesn't benefit from it.
Wrong is the wrong word, as apparently a dotted link is and isn't a link. Indicates multiuse? That's clear as mud.
Ideally I would like to use drop downs where possible like GP describes, since a > icon (or similar) before some text unambiguously indicates how to get more information, but sometimes the implementation is non-obvious. I've had issues when my data is tabular (like this pricing page). Where should the drop down appear? Sometimes you have a 3rd party table (or template, like this article describes), and the customization options might not be there. At the very least you have to spend time styling both the additional information AND figuring out how it fits into the document flow.
The great thing about a tooltip is that it's out of the document flow. You can just ignore the rest of your application, resulting in (usually) faster development speed. However, as GP points out, you have to consider mobile, and it's not always obvious how to indicate _in_ the context of your document that something is hoverable.
ⓘ is a best of both worlds solution IMO. It's totally unambiguous on both desktop and mobile that hovering, clicking, or tapping will bring up more information, AND you get the development speed of using a tooltip.
No they won't.
I don't mean this cynically, every test I've seen with a feature like that has had _very_ low engagement.*
This is the problem with features that "get out of the way" - they are underused and the intended value is lost.
It's a conundrum, because I totally agree in terms of interaction design but what good is a (well designed or not) feature that isn't used?
Presumably they felt that even though yellow was incorrect, it sent a clearer "do not cross" message to drivers.
They were later ordered to change them to white.
How do we know if the lane to the left is ok to go in, or if it actually is for carrying oncoming traffic?
You’d like to think that one way though not the only way, is to look for a double yellow line. As in, double yellows always separate opposing traffic so never cross them.
In CA though, double yellow was also chosen to separate the carpool lane as OP mentioned. So there was actually a really mundane case where driving to the left of a double yellow was actually fine. Seems very confusing to an autonomous car that’s operating at the mental-level of an 18mo old.
Imagine a tourist on that highway for the first time, at 3am, when there’s no traffic. Can they use that lane? Can they pull a sneaky u-turn and start driving the opposite direction?
What if I’m driving down the highway, effectively on mental autopilot, and suddenly become aware that I’m on the “wrong” side of the yellow line? How would I be likely to react?
The opportunities for misunderstanding by normal humans seem plenty.
My '11 Nissan Leaf couldn't even have LED taillights because the Feds said "no". Tesla isn't going to march into some DOT office and demand that the color of the lines be changed to accommodate them (I mean, they could, but the laughter would drown out the conversation).
CA changed it because not only was yellow against federal guidelines, but also because I personally believe it was a stupid choice to begin with (for reasons others have already listed).
Personally, I do find yellow lines are a stronger border, but then I grew up in a culture of yellow carpool lines. I feel like white lines are almost always ok to drive over, and yellow lines usually aren't (although yellow dotted lines are a sometimes drive over (if safe, to pass on a two lane undivided highway), and yellow solid + dotted is also ok to drive over (if safe, to get into a shared median lane for an unprotected left turn)
Single and double solid lines parallel to the flow of traffic, of any color, almost always mean "do not cross".
A single dashed line, or a double line where one or both halves is dashed, can be crossed under at least some circumstances. The rules for crossing these vary depending on context, e.g. one-sided passing and center turn lanes use similar markings but with the solid and dashed lines flipped. (You pass from the dashed side but enter the turn lane from the solid side.)
White lines separate traffic going the same direction. Yellow lines separate traffic in opposite directions. This is independent of whether the lines can be crossed.