3 ms·
Sure, at the time, the authors of battlezone wouldn't have been aware, since it predated BZFlag (and SGI) by 15 years. As did this article, written when battlez
by jiveturkey 5y ago
Sure, at the time, the authors of battlezone wouldn't have been aware, since it predated BZFlag (and SGI) by 15 years. As did this article, written when battlezone was still current.
IEEE has had this bad habit of recently republishing some old era articles as if they were current. I find it nostalgic but also disconcerting.
- teklaperry 5y agoIs there something we could do to make it less disconcerting? We hoped the bright box with the original publication date would cover that. (This year we're making an effort to identify articles in our paper archives that were contemporary (or 'ish) design stories at the time, that now have some historical meaning. Until this republication they didn't exist in digital form. Thoughts?
- jiveturkey 5y agoThe "bright box" disappears for me and I'm sure many others. It's just a callout and by default is visually ignored with my "ad reflex". Here's one obvious fix. First line of the article, italics: "Originally published x/y/zz".
- pvg 5y agoMaybe put the repost date and the original date/re-publication date closer together and/or in the same place? I think part of the confusion is people glance at where they expect the dateline to be and then miss the other bit because it looks like a quote or ad box.