It's always bothered me that links on webpages are single click to open. They should require double clicking to open (like just about everything else on a computer) and single click should be used to start selecting text, like everywhere else on a computer.
When you run an app from the taskbar or start menu, you single-click on the app icon, or single-click on the Start menu button and then single-click on the app.
Sure, icons on the desktop, or just about anything in a file/app explorer window, require a double-click by default, because the lineage of the main desktop area is just a file explorer window without the window decorations.
I think it might be about stakeholders wanting the web to "feel" more native and interactive. Double-clicking to "go" feels too much like you're interacting with the web as if it's a file browser. They want it to feel more immediate?
In principle I'd prefer the consistency of double-click or double-tap everywhere, but I'm used to adjusting based on context. Wouldn't double-tapping annoy everyone who primarily uses mobile devices?
You make some good points here. Even in file managers, one can usually highlight with a single click then use either a context menu or a menu at the top of the application to single-click on things like run, move, copy, or rename. I think the idea of making hyperlinks in hypertext more like a menu than like filesystem resources does make some sense, especially since the browser is an application and single-click within user applications has been pretty normal for a long time. Still, I agree it might have been better if this had gone the other way.
A double-click would better represent intent/consent, too, which the web has had long had issues with. Accidentally clicking things is too easy and frequent.
Why would you take the most common interaction on the web and change it to require double the actions with very specific timing?
If consistency between systems is more important than usability, it probably makes more sense to use single click to open in the OS (which has been an option in Windows for 30 years).
You know, I've often wondered how much simpler UX would be if this had been the case from the start. Hard to make any predictions, but one can optimistically dream...
I'm guessing it would be much more disruptive for touch devices. It would definitely reduce the number of erroneous clicks when just trying to touch to scroll the screen.
Selecting a link's text is secondary to opening it, so it makes sense that it takes a less direct action to do it. At least on Windows, just hold the "ALT" key to select without a click registering; not so bad, although intuition tells me most people don't know about it.
Double-clicking is much more difficult to do correctly, and distinguishing repeated single clicks from double clicks is another minefield (manifesting itself in e.g. the mouse gesture needed to rename a file on Windows - you must single click it once to select, and then single click the name again to edit it, but if you do it too fast, it's treated as a double click).
The real problem IMO is that we have effectively standardized on two-button mice as the baseline, with all UX then designed around that even though many mice have 5+ buttons these days. The three basic actions that desktop UI has ultimately converged on are: select; activate; show additional actions (context menu). These should logically map to three independent buttons, such that the two most common actions are mapped to buttons that have fingers resting on them in neutral position - e.g. left = activate, right = select, middle = context menu.
Doesn't the click cause the browser to "go" on mouseUp? Selecting is clicking then dragging - this seems like a clear enough difference to me that I've never had problems. In fact, sometimes I will click, and think, "oh I actually don't want to go there" and will drag off the link and release the mouse button and it doesn't take me there.
Most buttons do not require double-click. In fact, it's only Explorer and related things which have single click select, double click action, isn't it?
At one point round about Win98 Windows took inspiration in the other direction, with Active Desktop: you could change a setting and have single-click to action in Explorer.
I am sure that this would have been user tested many decades ago when mice had balls and three buttons. They might have even tested opening links on mouse over, which would be a bit too trigger happy.
Users of just the web are not fully computer literate. The interface is super easy compared to actual programs where you need things like menus, right clicks and full hotkey support.
If I think back to how my mother struggled with computers and how her friends were just as useless, I think they would be stumped with having to double click. Arthritis comes along too, so that generation needed all the help they could get. Generally it was only the advent of online shopping that enabled them to persevere with giving things a go.
Double-clicking originated with the Macintosh because Jobs wanted a single-button mouse above all else. We're used to it now, but they had training exercises to teach people to double-click because it's undiscoverable and takes practice.
