In postings from 1996, Jakob Nielsen said that the research suggested that presenting visited and unvisited links in two separate colors is profoundly better than going with one-color-fits-all. He give sundry guidlines including having unvisited links look vibrant and alive and visited links look dull and washed out. Krug's Don't make me think! is inconsistent but in the last recent edition, he says to pick two colors and stick with them.
Twentysixteen allows you complete freedom in choosing one color for all of your links: kind of like Boss Tweed's saying, "I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating."
I've been developing a child theme for twentysixteen, and there are some things that were not strictly usability concerns, but the goal was simply to get Wordpress working with its flagship thing without repeating problems the ?yearly? "Top 10 mistakes of web design" list.
One UX person gave comment that with blue unvisited, purple visited links, underlined everywhere (though the menu might not need them), all cater to a needlessly low user proficiency level. The point he seemed to be making, which leaves me mystified, was that my site was simply much too usable.
I don't think I understand Wordpress if its flagship theme does not AFAICT respect the annual "Top 10 mistakes of web design." That article is not a textbook; it'd a cheat sheet, and basic usability could go further.
What is going on in the development process if twentysixteen's pretty usable but I have to create a manual stylesheet if I want differentiated link colors and links usually underlined.
Why did twentysixteen not opt in to some basic usability guideline observance? There's part of the picture that I don't have: for on