4 ms·

> One of the saddest things about the modern Internet is how little hypertext is used. Right click, search google (Or however FF does it/extension), without th

> One of the saddest things about the modern Internet is how little hypertext is used. Right click, search google (Or however FF does it/extension), without the hard to read hypelinking standard (hard to read because it's for important stuff, you should stop there and think) Wikipedia is a joke in many articles around this hyperlinking irrelevant points. A hyperlink should reinforce the article, not detract from it in a random manner. We read linearly not in a hash.

zeveb 10y ago
> Right click, search google (Or however FF does it/extension) Which of course relies on a third-party, proprietary service. > A hyperlink should reinforce the article, not detract from it in a random manner. Back in the old days, being able to jump around from article to article was considered a virtue. It made the Web like a piece of interactive fiction, and adventure. It was awesome.
- pronoiac 10y ago
  I miss Suck, which felt like it started not using links for exposition: > Cavanaugh pointed out that one particular lasting legacy of Suck's is the idea of using a link as a rhetorical effect. "People still used italics to make a point in a sentence back then," he said, explaining that the site was one of the first to use a link to let readers know what it was writers were discussing, or to point to a joke. "That was what knocked my socks off about Suck right away, was the idea that oh, the link is this funny thing."[1] I enjoyed it when the link was like a footnote at odds with the text. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2015/09/16/suck-dot-com-20th-anniversary/ https://www.engadget.com/2015/09/16/suck-dot-com-20th-annive...
sbmassey 10y ago
I tend to read more in a stack than just linearly - looking up terms, taking notes, following links, then back to where I left off. That is what hyperlinks should be for.
int_19h 10y ago
>> Wikipedia is a joke in many articles around this hyperlinking irrelevant points. I think this is subjective. I find that I'm far more often frustrated by a wiki page I'm reading not linking something that I wanted to click on (necessitating search etc), than I am frustrated by overabundance of links. This varies between different wikis, though. >> We read linearly not in a hash. But do we do so because of the constraints that the legacy information mediums have imposed on us, or because it's really the only way our brain can process information? Perhaps our brains can, in fact, just as easily adapt to the web model?
kingmanaz 10y ago
A gopher-take on wikipedia: gopher://gopherpedia.com/ As even Firefox finally removed its support for the gopher protocol several years ago, "OverbiteFF" or the equivalent may need to be installed in Firefox or Chrome to view the above without issue.
jimjimjim 10y ago
I really have to disagree here. Depending on the starting page i "open in new tab" a whole bunch of links and then switch between tabs doing a breadth-first search finding my way to either deeper information on a topic or related information that may then become my focus. and don't call wikipedia a joke. I vastly prefer it to the hoard of content-mill listicle ridden garbage that makes up most of the popular web these days.

zeveb 10y ago

> Right click, search google (Or however FF does it/extension) Which of course relies on a third-party, proprietary service. > A hyperlink should reinforce the article, not detract from it in a random manner. Back in the old days, being able to jump around from article to article was considered a virtue. It made the Web like a piece of interactive fiction, and adventure. It was awesome.

pronoiac 10y ago
I miss Suck, which felt like it started not using links for exposition: > Cavanaugh pointed out that one particular lasting legacy of Suck's is the idea of using a link as a rhetorical effect. "People still used italics to make a point in a sentence back then," he said, explaining that the site was one of the first to use a link to let readers know what it was writers were discussing, or to point to a joke. "That was what knocked my socks off about Suck right away, was the idea that oh, the link is this funny thing."[1] I enjoyed it when the link was like a footnote at odds with the text. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2015/09/16/suck-dot-com-20th-anniversary/ https://www.engadget.com/2015/09/16/suck-dot-com-20th-annive...

sbmassey 10y ago

I tend to read more in a stack than just linearly - looking up terms, taking notes, following links, then back to where I left off. That is what hyperlinks should be for.

int_19h 10y ago

>> Wikipedia is a joke in many articles around this hyperlinking irrelevant points. I think this is subjective. I find that I'm far more often frustrated by a wiki page I'm reading not linking something that I wanted to click on (necessitating search etc), than I am frustrated by overabundance of links. This varies between different wikis, though. >> We read linearly not in a hash. But do we do so because of the constraints that the legacy information mediums have imposed on us, or because it's really the only way our brain can process information? Perhaps our brains can, in fact, just as easily adapt to the web model?

kingmanaz 10y ago

A gopher-take on wikipedia: gopher://gopherpedia.com/ As even Firefox finally removed its support for the gopher protocol several years ago, "OverbiteFF" or the equivalent may need to be installed in Firefox or Chrome to view the above without issue.

jimjimjim 10y ago

I really have to disagree here. Depending on the starting page i "open in new tab" a whole bunch of links and then switch between tabs doing a breadth-first search finding my way to either deeper information on a topic or related information that may then become my focus. and don't call wikipedia a joke. I vastly prefer it to the hoard of content-mill listicle ridden garbage that makes up most of the popular web these days.