5 ms·

What a weird essay! Very unsatisfying payoff. They lay out the theft, public reaction, some art history, then not a single word on how it resloved, who actually

What a weird essay! Very unsatisfying payoff. They lay out the theft, public reaction, some art history, then not a single word on how it resloved, who actually took it and how it was found. The only hint was "an antique dealer got a letter". Thanks, I guess I'll just try Wikipedia.

progman32 3y ago
There are links to further pages with some of the information you mention. Though, Wikipedia lays it out in a more digestible format.
ashwch 3y ago
The tiny Mona Lisa faces in the articles are hyperlinks to additional pages: https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_level_1/5return_monafrm.html https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_...
- irrational 3y ago
  How did you even know that? That honestly would not have occurred to me. What terrible UX.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    I went and looked, very Web 1.0 this, so maybe that's why it looks so obvious to me that they're links as this is how things would have looked if you were a cool website in 2000, but also they have no obvious function other than being links, given that they are so very small, they always show the same image and they have ugly border around them.
    - antonvs 3y ago
      That's a poor ux even for web 1.0. It's a lazy way of writing without concern for whether your readers are familiar with the context you're already familiar with.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        Our opinions vary on this - I think it's a medium UX for web 1.0.
        twelve40 3y ago
        always happy to run into a true web 1.0 connoisseur lol
      - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        Interestingly it was immediately scannable to me as links. I was an avid web user at the time (I was 15!) and I guess that stuck in my mind.
        irrational 3y ago
        I've started using the web in 1996 when I was in my early 20s, but, on my phone, the border around the images was so incredibly small that I couldn't see it until I went back and looked very closely.
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        It actually wasn't bad in its time, and it's not about the technology its the conventions. Those purple/blue borders were immediately recognizable as links. A lot of people today wouldn't understand it, but a lot of people wouldn't understand Shakespeare today either. It's just a product of its time.
        irrational 3y ago
        I think the issue is, it wasn’t designed for mobile devices. The images are so tiny on my phone that I didn’t even see a colored border around them until someone mentioned them and I went back and looked again. I could just barely make out the border if I squinted.
        antonvs 3y ago
        The issue is not whether someone knows the links are clickable or not. The issues were raised upthread: > They lay out the theft, public reaction, some art history, then not a single word on how it resloved, who actually took it and how it was found. The only hint was "an antique dealer got a letter". It's lazy to not include enough information to make a coherent article. Links in this context are for further information, not for basic information needed to understand the article.
  - croisillon 3y ago
    (some of) those links are also as plain text on the left hand menu
glaucon 3y ago
There's significantly more detail in the timeline[1] which is linked to from the cited page.The links aren't all that obvious if, like me, you are looking at the page on a phone. My favourite part of this story is how the picture, once recovered, toured Italy before being returned to the Louvre. I seem to recall (can't remember the name of the book) that significant sentiment had arisen in Italy suggesting that it shouldn't be returned and the tour was an attempt to address that concern. [1] https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_level_1/timeline_monafrm.html https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_...

progman32 3y ago

There are links to further pages with some of the information you mention. Though, Wikipedia lays it out in a more digestible format.

ashwch 3y ago

The tiny Mona Lisa faces in the articles are hyperlinks to additional pages: https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_level_1/5return_monafrm.html https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_...

irrational 3y ago
How did you even know that? That honestly would not have occurred to me. What terrible UX.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  I went and looked, very Web 1.0 this, so maybe that's why it looks so obvious to me that they're links as this is how things would have looked if you were a cool website in 2000, but also they have no obvious function other than being links, given that they are so very small, they always show the same image and they have ugly border around them.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    That's a poor ux even for web 1.0. It's a lazy way of writing without concern for whether your readers are familiar with the context you're already familiar with.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      Our opinions vary on this - I think it's a medium UX for web 1.0.
      - twelve40 3y ago
        always happy to run into a true web 1.0 connoisseur lol
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      Interestingly it was immediately scannable to me as links. I was an avid web user at the time (I was 15!) and I guess that stuck in my mind.
      - irrational 3y ago
        I've started using the web in 1996 when I was in my early 20s, but, on my phone, the border around the images was so incredibly small that I couldn't see it until I went back and looked very closely.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      It actually wasn't bad in its time, and it's not about the technology its the conventions. Those purple/blue borders were immediately recognizable as links. A lot of people today wouldn't understand it, but a lot of people wouldn't understand Shakespeare today either. It's just a product of its time.
      - irrational 3y ago
        I think the issue is, it wasn’t designed for mobile devices. The images are so tiny on my phone that I didn’t even see a colored border around them until someone mentioned them and I went back and looked again. I could just barely make out the border if I squinted.
      - antonvs 3y ago
        The issue is not whether someone knows the links are clickable or not. The issues were raised upthread: > They lay out the theft, public reaction, some art history, then not a single word on how it resloved, who actually took it and how it was found. The only hint was "an antique dealer got a letter". It's lazy to not include enough information to make a coherent article. Links in this context are for further information, not for basic information needed to understand the article.
- croisillon 3y ago
  (some of) those links are also as plain text on the left hand menu

glaucon 3y ago

There's significantly more detail in the timeline[1] which is linked to from the cited page.The links aren't all that obvious if, like me, you are looking at the page on a phone. My favourite part of this story is how the picture, once recovered, toured Italy before being returned to the Louvre. I seem to recall (can't remember the name of the book) that significant sentiment had arisen in Italy suggesting that it shouldn't be returned and the tour was an attempt to address that concern. [1] https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_level_1/timeline_monafrm.html https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_...