3 ms·

> It took some close reading of the article to determine that this account is from 1988. I'd thought Zenith had long since ... met its nadir. Your mental ad-bl

> It took some close reading of the article to determine that this account is from 1988. I'd thought Zenith had long since ... met its nadir. Your mental ad-blocker may have caused you to ignore the box that explained that: > This article was first published as “The longest survivor loses its grip.” It appeared in the August 1988 issue of IEEE Spectrum. A PDF version is available on IEEE Xplore. The photographs appeared in the original print version.

dredmorbius 4y ago
The box uses small type and isn't prominently placed. It is of course what I ultimately did stumble on. I'd searched the top, bottom, and sidebars (usual places) for a dateline without luck. There is a notation presently reading "23 h" (I presume "23 hours ago) at the top of the article. This is of course misleading. There's no other prominent notice that the piece is historical, and very little context within the text itself placing dates, though the notion that CRT masks would be a current (2022) technological development struck me as unlikely. IEEE should do better. Hiding datelines, amongst other sins (relative times, e.g., X time-units ago, or JS-dependent datelines), are an increasingly common Web annoyance. Contrast The Guardian who rather refreshingly note prominently when a piece is no longer current. E.g., <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/04/offshore-secrets-data-emails-icij https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/04/offshore-secrets-...>, which notes in a bold black-on-yellow box at the top of the page "This article is more than 9 years old". (From an earlier comment of mine.)
dpkirchner 4y ago
That box only appears after you tap the "read more" button that is styled as plain text, at least when viewed in mobile Safari. It's an odd pair of decisions made by the folks at IEEE.

3 ms·

> It took some close reading of the article to determine that this account is from 1988. I'd thought Zenith had long since ... met its nadir. Your mental ad-bl

by tablespoon 4y ago

dredmorbius 4y ago
The box uses small type and isn't prominently placed. It is of course what I ultimately did stumble on. I'd searched the top, bottom, and sidebars (usual places) for a dateline without luck. There is a notation presently reading "23 h" (I presume "23 hours ago) at the top of the article. This is of course misleading. There's no other prominent notice that the piece is historical, and very little context within the text itself placing dates, though the notion that CRT masks would be a current (2022) technological development struck me as unlikely. IEEE should do better. Hiding datelines, amongst other sins (relative times, e.g., X time-units ago, or JS-dependent datelines), are an increasingly common Web annoyance. Contrast The Guardian who rather refreshingly note prominently when a piece is no longer current. E.g., <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/04/offshore-secrets-data-emails-icij https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/04/offshore-secrets-...>, which notes in a bold black-on-yellow box at the top of the page "This article is more than 9 years old". (From an earlier comment of mine.)
dpkirchner 4y ago
That box only appears after you tap the "read more" button that is styled as plain text, at least when viewed in mobile Safari. It's an odd pair of decisions made by the folks at IEEE.