Is there a way to make the visable hyperlink changed to a different name but still link?
Example - so lets say my hyperlink in my document shows www.adobe.com/indesign/hyperlink.com but instead of having my readers see that ugly, long link I just want them to click on a few words like CLICK HERE and when they do they will automatically go to my linked page.
Any help is appreciated.
Yes. With the Type tool, select the hyperlink text and overtype it with your simpler expression. The URL will remain the same.
You could also use an empty frame placed over the relevant copy and make that into the hyperlink. Then it doesn't matter what copy you use for the user to click on.
Gah! Please don't do that! Kills all capability of being accessible to those who use assistive technologies, and it creates clunky code.
@Mike Witherell's answer is cleaner and accessible.
Being openly derisive of someone else's suggestion does not really help anybody. The beauty of having working professionals answering questions in these forums is that the proposed solutions come from a wide variety of actual working environments. In this case my suggestion was based on many years working in medical advertising. In that environment where for many reasons copy and layout was in a constant state of flux attaching hyperlinks to specific text became an unworkable solution. Having the links as separate objects on a separate layer and not dependent on copy became the most efficient way for us to meet our client's and regulatory's constantly changing demands and the impossible deadlines that ensued. This was a tried and true solution which I felt it only prudent to suggest to the person who posted the original question.
I do understand your objections based on accessibility. Unfortunately, in the world of digital production there is yet to be a "one size fits all" solution to any problem. In the case of hyperlinks in pdfs many people are already left out simply because they have the wrong pdf viewer. That others are unable to use them for other reasons is not acceptable of course. But the users who ask the questions do deserve to hear all possibilities so that they can make their own decisions as to what works in their own environment.
Being openly derisive of someone else's suggestion does not really help anybody.By @Bill Silbert
Gah! I was being as kind as I could and wasn't derisive of you, Bill. I spoke only about your suggestion, not you as a person.
You should have seen what my first response was <grin>.
No interactive digital document — whether accessible or not — should ever have "stacked" code where one clickable element (the new hyperlink) is superimposed on top of another (the original hyperlink) to visibly hide it.
What you described is a variation of the old hack, "electronic whiteout." It created problems in print documents 35+ years ago, and it creates new problems in today's digital documents. "Computer eyes" see everything in a digital file, even the stuff we white out or hide from human eyes.
It's questionable that type of code would work on any digital device for anyone, whether it's a PDF in a PDF reader, or an EPUB in a reader, or a website viewed on a computer or mobile device. The two hyperlinks can conflict with each other, and in some technologies, separate from each other. The invisible targetted hotspot area (what the user should click) could move to anywhere on the screen in some technologies.
Having the links as separate objects on a separate layer and not dependent on copy became the most efficient way for us to meet our client's and regulatory's constantly changing demands and the impossible deadlines that ensued. This was a tried and true solution which I felt it only prudent to suggest to the person who posted the original question.
In digital documents (PDF, HTML, EPUB), the hyperlink tag ( <a> in HTML or <Link> in PDF) can't stand alone on its own; it's an inline tag and must always be nested inside a <P> or other block-level tag. Using your terms, it must be dependent on copy. It must always be connected to some sort of real content...text, a graphic, whatever.
In the workflow described above, I can't imagine your digital ads worked. Example: When viewing a webpage on your smartphone, have you ever found that a visible hyperlink (say, blue and underlined), couldn't be clicked? Several code problems could cause that, but one is when the hyperlink code is separated from its corresponding visible text.
Mike's solution is simple, clean, and easier to do. A variation of it our studio uses: type the text you want to see (1), and then select and hyperlink it to the final URL or page anchor/destination (2). Example: Read our blog.
While I did not actually take your comments personally I would suggest that beginning a post with "Gah!" could be interpreted as possibly scornful.
As to the issue at hand I never suggested putting one hyperlink on top of another. In our workflow we did not make the actual text a hyperlink at all. We just made an unstroked and unfilled frame into the hyperlink. There was no battle for the ages of one hyperlink struggling for supremacy over another. I am not a coder myself but our agency did have an entire department of coders who not only cleared the process we used they actually preferred it. Apparently having all of the hyperlinks in a document on a single layer was useful for them.
I will say that it is my understanding that in order to be entirely successful across the board for digital and web production that hyperlinked pdfs are not the best solution. However, in our case the clients wanted it and we delivered it as they wanted. Thankfully, I have recently retired and no longer have to keep waging the battles with unreasonable demands.
I stand by my original post. While not a universal solution, it did work very well for our needs. On that basis I would not hesitate to recommend it to people in a similar situation. Whether they use it or not should be left up to them.