While methods described here will work, it is important to consider why you would do this. Links have states: default/link; focus; hover; active; and visited. Each should have appropriate and accessible affordances (plural). Removing an underline from a link is like removing a door handle from a door. If you replace the underline with some other display properties, please ensure that you use more than one and that they are clearly differentiated from surrounding text. Then, test.
Please consider that something that is not broken does not require a fix.
It is possible to solve for conversion-centered design tactics and human-centered needs and preferences at the same time.
Fortunately, we have plenty of data that suggests by solving the human problems, you will better support the business ones. These things do not have to be at odds.
The best part of Jason’s article is: “Always test and reflect on your campaigns to find what works best.” Just be sure that testing includes people with a range of abilities in a range of contexts.
Alignment matters.
As an industry, I hope we can teach and update people on the use of this term. A “CTA” should be a singular call-to-action that the business prefers the audience to take – and may be personalized, contextual or dynamic to an individual person within that audience. The user should be able to take this action via ANY interaction method, and not simply a link that has been styled to look like a button (which nearly always has poor and inconsistent affordances).
That said, IF you are using a button-like-object, please consider that eye tracking horizontally across the viewport between elements of different horizontal alignment: adds cognitive load to all users, decreases readability, and is an accessibility challenge for certain audiences, like those with dyslexia.
The short answer is: test with your audience.
Why? Hijacking native scroll behavior is nearly always inaccessible and adds cognitive load.
The comments and threads on Github just keep coming as well.
Then, this was published yesterday: AMP for email is a terrible idea.
There is a real opportunity here to get aligned and finally publish real specs on email standards via the W3C HTML for Email CG.
The solution from @Nicholas will keep the item a link but remove the affordance properties. This is not the goal in this particular context. This instance of the email address is specifically NOT to send an email to it, but to add it to contacts.
Don’t focus on style. Focus on format detection. It is a poor practice and experience to disable format detection using the meta tag. Instead, you can simply insert an HTML entity into the display name to prevent format detection and creation of the mailto link. Use a zero-width non-joiner: either or
Like this:
aus@‌emls.tthon.fr
Then, a good practice is to enhance this request with a link to a .VCF file for desktop email clients – to make it easier for users to create the contact.
Just saw this post from Justin @ FreshInbox:
AMP for Email: What You Need to Know About Google’s New Interactive Email Effort