"Previous" doesn't function as 'back'...

I've found the discussion in this thread very interesting and food for thought.

It seems to me that John Clements suggestion that the 'previous/next' & 'back/forward' should all be available options in the link-to drop-down makes much sense to me. I believe as a tool it should be as flexible as possible. Offering the designer choice is a good thing.

In support of having the additional options included in a future version I offer the following scenario: When designing a web site it is entirely plausible that you could include a page that is linked from several others. Once visited, the navigation should really go "back" and not to a sequential next or previous.

While I can agree Covoxer's argument that back & forward are typically browser functions, I still think the tool should provide flexibility (without needing script skills).

Regards, Ross

It's a conundrum for sure. For when you go back to the page last visited, the page you left becomes the page last visited :rolleyes:

Further to that Steve, I can agree it isn't very logical to have a back button on every page in a site; yet, there can still be specific pages where it really is appropriate. A good example is if you have a multipage site and every page links to a Copyright notice page. When through visiting that page it makes sense to have a 'back' navigation -- much more sense than a previous or next.

Regards, Bossy Rossy

Geez, time zones at opposite ends-o-the-world, at the sametime.

Good-night Johnboy!

For these unique cases (and I mean unique - how many sites with back button have you seen?) - you can easily use this link:

javascript:history.go(-1)

Why clutter interface with it? Is it hard to remember? Then type "javscript back" in a google. It's really a trivial thing.
And on top of it - it is considered a bad practice to include history links on pages. Sorry for repeating myself, but it looks like you don't read my posts a all.

There is quite a lot MUCH more important and useful things that should be added to future versions of WD than this.

Fair enough John. :)

I certainly read all your postings and appreciate your work. Still, of course, I reserve the right to disagree. While you see it as a little trivial thing I see it as potentially useful - even if it is uncommonly used today.

Regards, Ross