 |
 |
 |
|
re: Untangled up in blue
My vote: Not linky enough! There are (at least) two layers of meaning added by links: the information pointed to by the links themselves, and the more subtle meaning provided by the writer's choices about what to link and what NOT to link. For example, here are two versions of one of your postings with a "medium" link-density. The first shows your links, the second shows an alternative set of links. Even without following the links, they read slightly differently (at least to me). Note that the "links" are fake; they're just formatting: Did Norlin get married? I think I scanned past that part the first time I read about his dog's health problems. I have no idea what perspective to keep on the matter, especially now that the dog is fine. His name is Norman, by the way. I'm talking about the dog. I don't know about the wife. All this is in keeping with the spooky nature of the Norlin's background. Did Norlin get married? I think I scanned past that part the first time I read about his dog's health problems. I have no idea what perspective to keep on the matter, especially now that the dog is fine. His name is Norman, by the way. I'm talking about the dog. I don't know about the wife. All this is in keeping with the spooky nature of the Norlin's background. Links represent a kind of emphasis that says something -- sometimes a lot -- about the author's intent. This is probably a good argument against any kind of automated linking system such as Microsoft's (temporarily?) abortive smart tags idea. Related question: what's the next step beyond the kind of linking we have today? Maybe "sidebar" windows that automatically open some links through some sort of mechanism? Maybe more than one kind of link, indicating another layer of meaning (for example, "reference" links, "story" links, and "disagreement" links)?
|
