I *like* footnotes. And anyway, your footnotes aren't new, but lately you've been making a lot of "lets discuss this big weighty thing" posts, which I think make good meme[1] sources.
[1] In the original, and not the specialised LJ sense.
I don't dislike footnotes as such. Though it is possible to abuse them and some people seem to consider doing so to be the height of good style, and so I had to kill them.
There is one point, which is that on a screen you have to scroll down to look at them and then scroll back up, and it's actually much easier if they appear immediately after the paragraph they belong to. I'm not sure if there's a standard name for things that would be footnotes but are just after their owning paragraph.
(I dislike endnotes in books, or at least endnotes that you might want to read, similarly; you end up having to keep two bookmarks, one where you're reading and one in the endnotes. On a printed page footnotes seem like the best answer.)
you have to scroll down to look at them and then scroll back up
which suggests that on screen a better approach is the marginal note (or perhaps the tooltip), if you wish to avoid disrupting the flow of a sentence by the insertion of a long bracketed section?
on a screen you have to scroll down to look at them and then scroll back up,
A couple of people, eg passage, always make the asterisk and the footnote link to each other, which solves that.
it's actually much easier if they appear immediately after the paragraph they belong to.
I tend to do which ever feels more useful and amusing. In serious posts, I often include footnotes of genuine "most people don't need this, but if you were going to say foo, here's my response." Conversely, if it's just an amusing aside, below the para is generally more useful.
Links aren't really the answer - you still need to act to see the note, if they are on the same screenful then you can just focus on a different bit of it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 05:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 05:31 pm (UTC)I wonder if it's that
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 05:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 06:03 pm (UTC)[1] In the original, and not the specialised LJ sense.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 06:36 pm (UTC)I don't dislike footnotes as such. Though it is possible to abuse them and some people seem to consider doing so to be the height of good style, and so I had to kill them.
There is one point, which is that on a screen you have to scroll down to look at them and then scroll back up, and it's actually much easier if they appear immediately after the paragraph they belong to. I'm not sure if there's a standard name for things that would be footnotes but are just after their owning paragraph.
(I dislike endnotes in books, or at least endnotes that you might want to read, similarly; you end up having to keep two bookmarks, one where you're reading and one in the endnotes. On a printed page footnotes seem like the best answer.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 07:44 pm (UTC)which suggests that on screen a better approach is the marginal note (or perhaps the tooltip), if you wish to avoid disrupting the flow of a sentence by the insertion of a long bracketed section?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-13 12:16 pm (UTC)A couple of people, eg passage, always make the asterisk and the footnote link to each other, which solves that.
it's actually much easier if they appear immediately after the paragraph they belong to.
I tend to do which ever feels more useful and amusing. In serious posts, I often include footnotes of genuine "most people don't need this, but if you were going to say foo, here's my response." Conversely, if it's just an amusing aside, below the para is generally more useful.
"Paranotes?" not really logical, but clear.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-13 12:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-16 08:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 05:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 06:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 07:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 10:48 pm (UTC)§ () I even have a mostly written RFC on the use of footnotes. Maybe I should turn it into a web-page instead….