I never directly follow hyperlinks a page that I'm still reading. Instead I middle-click to open them in a new tab, and continue reading in my current tab until I'm done (or until I get stuck and need the info from a linked page to continue). Only then will I look at the new tabs. This works pretty well for maintaining concentration, but it's only accessible to users who understand tabbed browsing and go out of their way to develop the habit.
I wonder if a better interface than footnotification would be to make the hyperlinks not immediately open the new page, but instead add the linked page to a list displayed at the bottom or side of the document. This way, you could click on any links that seem interesting and get a list of them to follow later.
I also browse this way, but this is not the issue he is trying to solve. The issue is, that the mere fact that the hyperlink is present in the text will slightly impair your concentration, because a part of your mind will need to evaluate whether to click or not [there was a study proving this].
And I tend to agree, I found the text (especially a long one) without hyperlinks be easier to concentrate on. Really, it's better and I welcome this option to be added.
I have a Wikipedia client on my iPod that does something similar -- touch-and-holding on a link dumps it to a queue instead of navigating to that entry. So as you go through an interesting article, you can queue up related stuff and easily get back to it later, without having to open up multiple pages/set up bookmarks/<mention kludge here>. It is sweet.
Link Pad for Firefox is similar in concept, but the UI could be a lot more elegant.
I think this is a fine option to provide, but I don't buy the argument that inserting a superscripted number is any less cognitively disruptive than underlining the text of a link. It's still distracting from the flow of reading.
You've never been reading, reached the end of a page, and sai to yourself, "Oh hey footnotes, I wonder what they are attached to?"? Superscripts are easier to ignore because they don't modify the word or phrase's presentation, while links necessarily modify the whole thing.
Personally, whenever I find a superscript I compulsively go to the footnote and back. I think of footnotes as asides which would be too long to put in parentheses. (I do ignore footnotes that just go to citations.)
There's seems to be some disagreement and debate here about what is "less distracting" between superscripts (followed by footnotes) and links. To me this seems obvious since one adds text to the sentence (literally a number) and the other has only an underline to signify its presence. However, it just occurred to me that this is not what this debate is about.
The distraction in this context is not defined by the presence or absence of text, it's the perceived value of the content there. I think historically footnotes have been of lower value to the reader than links. Take wikipedia as an example: for info that is absolutely necessary to understand the article there is a link, and for further reading or references there is a footnote. Maybe we have been conditioned to think links are necessary reading because of their historical use, and that's why one camp sees them as "more distracting."
I think historically footnotes have been of lower value to the reader than links
I must have OCFD (obsessive-compulsive footnote disorder). I feel compelled to read every footnote.
Years ago I read the first ~100 pages of The Sound and the Fury, then stopped. It still bugs me that I never finished it. Unread footnotes are like that.
I think the point they are trying to make is that sometimes less information is better. For example, if I am reading an article about dog walking (example), I don't necessarily want my mind to be distracted by the wikipedia link to Wheaten terriers. This type of information, when presented as Readability does, is better handled as a footnote.
There are many sites online that I prefer to read using Readability (Gruber comes to mind), but there are more that I prefer to read in the normal hyperlink format we all know and love. For the ones where I use Readability, I think the option to use footnotes is nice.
footnotes are convenient when reading a physical object because, as you imply, more information right there can be distracting. however if you choose to go find the footnote, that's up to the reader and would objectively qualify as a distraction. similarly, a link with no hover over text is left for the reader to choose to click or not. this IS a footnote in a sense and is the modern paradigm used for digital reading.
I think, having a link in the middle of a sentence is more distracting than using a footnote style link at the end of the sentence. EX:
The war of 1812 was started by the United States in response to a series of trade restrictions (do you want to know more?) to impede on-going American trade with France. Vs.
The war of 1812 was started by the United States in response to a series of trade restrictions to impede on-going American trade with France. (do you want to know more?)
I often find when I am reading Wikipedia or tvtropes.org just processing all the great links takes significant effort. AKA why do I have 15 tabs open.
So my text (would you like to know more) is trying to represent that choice. And my point is the presence of a link or a footnote both represent the option to learn more and when creating content deciding where to place those links is important.
PS: Wikipedia uses both and I find the footnotes are far less distracting.
I liked Readability, but since I got a Kindle I am in love with Instapaper. Does more or less the same thing, but pushes it to your ebook reader. I hope they add a similar feature.
This is a great improvement. Should definitely help with sites like TechCrunch where they litter their articles with about 5,000 links to previous articles they've written.
True enough but for some reason a superscript is less distracting to me than a blue link. It's almost a compulsion for me to hover over each inline link to see where it goes. Hopefully this cuts down on that.
I just mean footnotes in general. If I see [x] after a phrase, I instinctively feel the need to look up the footnote and find out what the author wanted to say or reference there. Adding footnote links that aren't actually footnotes would drive me crazy.
I wonder if this will really help with the issue of comprehension that Nick Carr was talking about. The links are still there and still visible so I'm not sure that I won't just use them in the same way. That said, it is nicer looking now that they don't pop nearly as much.
I think that it is something that helps. In my experience, footnotes promote further reading because there is more of a tendency to read through an article and then look at the footnotes. I think this is corroborated by ad placement strategies (or more like this links). Users tend to read through, then look at what's at the bottom of the content at which point they'll take action on it.
I know that it's not the point of the article, but I find it deeply depressing that a post about something called Readability contains the following sentences:
> While Readability does remove ads, that was never its intended purpose. It’s goal from the outset was clear ….
OK, fair enough—the downvotes have spoken clearly.
Truth to tell, I looked at the article for contact information—obviously far too cursorily—and, when I didn't see it, figured that the author would be likely to spot it on Hacker News. (I have since e-mailed the author.)
I wonder if a better interface than footnotification would be to make the hyperlinks not immediately open the new page, but instead add the linked page to a list displayed at the bottom or side of the document. This way, you could click on any links that seem interesting and get a list of them to follow later.