4 ms·
the original story was split out into 8 pages and is bombarded with ads, i guess i can see why the print version was linked instead
by jmtame 16y ago
the original story was split out into 8 pages and is bombarded with ads, i guess i can see why the print version was linked instead
- wyclif 16y agoI agree. There is no reason to spread a simple interview over 8 pages so that Wired can get additional ad impressions, and I upvoted the parent because I hate that crap.
- tzs 16y agoThe regular version is much more readable, since it sets the column size reasonably. The print version fits to the window size. Furthermore, for those who prefer the print version, it is a single click away from the regular version. On the other hand, there is no link on the print version to go to the regular version. This alone is sufficient to make the regular version the correct version to link to.
- zalew 16y agoYeah, and this particular '96 html is so bad that the print version is all bold and unreadable after using Readability while the original looks quite good (only the first page is bold) btw I guess I got downvoted for encouraging linking to the original, who'd know.
- _delirium 16y ago> The regular version is much more readable, since it sets the column size reasonably. Perhaps if you're really good at ignoring peripheral distractions, but for me, I'd rather have the column be too wide than the column be narrow and a flashing GIF in the margin!
- barrkel 16y agoUse Readability.
- srgseg 16y agoTo be fair - the only way to have known that this was published Feb 1996 would have been to have had the regular link.
- nailer 16y agoYes, the site and magazine use ads for funding. What's your point?