It *does* seem strange to call click a style. But the Styles page of the manual lists it as one.

I guess that the reasoning there, was that we want users to think `element *args, styles_hash`. 
I learned Ruby and Shoes at the same time and never understood click as an option. I always used it by name:

```ruby
Shoes.app do
  flow do
    para "A flow"
    click do
      alert "you clicked!"
    end
  end
end
```

That is until I discovered you could just stick a block on stuff and it would get called on click (*sometimes*). 

Anyways I'm getting side tracked. My point is, that as a newbie who learned ruby via shoes the api felt like this:

```ruby
Shoes.app do
  element *basic_stuff_my_element_needs_to_get_going, how_I_want_it_to_look_hash do
    stuff_I_want_it_to_do_when_I_click_on_it
  end
end
```
So I am partial to making it work that way. 

Remembering this made me want to drop the click option altogether and just make everything clickable via a block. But I'm pretty sure that would be a big no-no for compatibility. Not to mention there are other non-style options like the progress option in download. . . 

Anyways the short of it is: I think the Styles page of the manual is trying to list out all of the options you can pass to an element whether or not they actually *style* the element. So to follow suit we should either call opts styles, or change that paradigm to be more consistent. Or just not worry about it :smile: