From: mort (manuel@netbustion.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 17:15:41 BST
On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 17:36, Jim Dabell wrote:
> - ------------------------------------------------------
> The following sites have linked to this article:
>
> - - link 1
> - - link 2
> - ------------------------------------------------------
> I may move this to a "slashbox"-style section down the side, as I already
> have a few things there like rss feeds. It seems simple enough - perhaps
> too wordy for a simple link? I think I would go with "linked from" or
> similar.
That's fine. My point was just making it simple enough to be understood
by the majority of readers, without throwing too much jargon at their
faces. A lot of solutions fit into that.
Or maybe i'm just a little too nielsen-ish today :)
> A similar question: my "full article" link is exactly the same as my
> permalink - would it be wiser to get rid of one (two links going to the
> same place = confusing & unnecessary), or would it be better to keep it
> (permalink is instantly recognisable to those who know what it means)?
>
>From my view, if they are semantically different / have different
functions, both links should exist. If I scan the page looking for one
of them and can't find it, it may be not clear that one link covers both
functions.
Besides, i can't picture anyone thinking "What?! The "permalink" points
to the same URL as the "full article"? I'm so confused!! I feel all
dizzy inside! This weblog be dammed!" :-)
Message sent over the Blogite mailing list.
Archives: http://www.aquarionics.com/misc/archives/blogite/
Instructions: http://www.aquarionics.com/misc/blogite/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 18:05:00 BST