For some, anyway.
To link, or not to link: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to not know
The slings and arrows of the source,
Or to take arms against a sea of urban myth,
And by linking end them? …
An on-going debate amongst some is that articles from the media ought to contain links to sources and where these ought to be placed.
Nick Carr has written a blog post querying if links should be placed within the body of an article, arguing that their altered style distracts attention from the flow of the text and argument, and that thus links should be placed at the end of articles.
But he has presented this as a writing style question.
I’d like to suggest another angle, that this isn’t a writing problem; it’s a web document design problem.
Perhaps the question is not to link within the body of the article or not, but how to best present documents on the WWW.
Links don’t have to be represented in any particular way. The ’classic’ style, hailing from the early WWW, is for them to be underlined and coloured in blue. No web designer has to present them this way, and haven’t for some time.
Good web design uses Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) to describe the style of all elements on a website. This includes links. They don’t have to be blue. They don’t have to be underlined. That’s just convention. They can be anything you want. You can even leave them ’invisible’ – i.e. in the same style as the body text – unless the mouse is rolled over them if you wanted to. On sciblogs they’re blue but not underlined.
Use of underlines and colour does ’grab’ attention. Use more subtle themes if what you have seems too bold. Longer articles probably favour more subtle design.
What I really want to get at, and am working towards, is that not only do links not have to be in a particular style, they don’t have to be static: they can be dynamically altered.
A while back I developed the beginnings of a e-Document format, hoping to use this as a lead-in for writing on-line documentation for computational biology (my specialist area). I’ve been ’programming’ on the WWW since just before the first HTML standard (HTML 1.0), so I research document design and spent time thinking about how documents are presented in print and what might be added to an HTML-based presentation that resulted in some features I rarely see.
Rather remove the links from the body of the article, provide a means for readers to hide them if they prefer to read ’plain text.’ They can reveal them later if they want to explore further. Or readers could choose to emphasise links if they want to visually scan the article for a link.
What’s stopping this?
Not the writing, the software.
I’m aware this won’t fix the immediate problem, but my thought is that perhaps people are rallying at the wrong thing.
Thoughts welcome in the comments.
I’ve written another longer article on links in articles in general. Seeing as three articles at once on the topic would be overkill, I’ll leave it for some other time! (Aimee has another post on this theme up.)
A quick thought for those stuck with fixed styles. One problem with having the links to the bottom is that they are disconnected from the text; this is the reason, of course, that blogging style usually refers to sources directly. One compromise is to use footnote marks, like the numbered references I have used in some of my articles. I link them so that they move the reader to the corresponding item in the reference section on the same page, like clicking on the super-scripted reference after this1 will take you back up to the poem. A problem with this solution is that the footnote marks provide a very small target for clicking. Research shows that users favour larger ‘click targets’. This, and the effort involved in manually setting these links up, is that reason I’ve stopped doing this. I’d be interested in comments on this, too.
* I’m tempted to do the entire sonnet, but I haven’t the time…
Other articles in Code for life: