3 ms·

This is why I never got into books. There's a few hundred words, and then they just stop! Sometimes in the middle of a sentence! I've never figured out where th

by scbrg 3y ago

This is why I never got into books. There's a few hundred words, and then they just stop! Sometimes in the middle of a sentence! I've never figured out where they hide the scroll wheel so I can get to the rest of the text. All media come with some conventions that people are simply expected to know. In the late 90-ies, a blueish border around an image was an indication that it was a clickable link. Nobody ever bothered pointing out that this image can be clicked. Perhaps lazy, I don't know, but then the entire web was guilty.

irrational 3y ago
I’m on a phone. I honestly couldn’t even see the border around the image until I went back and looked super close again. It is very hard to make out. Probably because the images are so tiny.
- scbrg 3y ago
  Sure. You're on a device that had its first incarnation launched seven years after this web page was made. The site was made in the era of 800x600 CRT monitors. There was no way in hell people could miss that border. The web designer didn't account for a world that wouldn't exist for another decade. Nobody expected people to run around with supercomputers in their pockets, equipped with screens with a pixel density more than an order of magnitude higher than was common place at the time, on a screen an order of magnitude smaller. How many people today take common usage patterns of the 2030-ies into account when they're designing things? Any web pages optimized to be consumed by AI:s running on quantum computers embedded in people's underwear? If not, what's their excuse?
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.

by scbrg 3y ago

irrational 3y ago

I’m on a phone. I honestly couldn’t even see the border around the image until I went back and looked super close again. It is very hard to make out. Probably because the images are so tiny.

scbrg 3y ago
Sure. You're on a device that had its first incarnation launched seven years after this web page was made. The site was made in the era of 800x600 CRT monitors. There was no way in hell people could miss that border. The web designer didn't account for a world that wouldn't exist for another decade. Nobody expected people to run around with supercomputers in their pockets, equipped with screens with a pixel density more than an order of magnitude higher than was common place at the time, on a screen an order of magnitude smaller. How many people today take common usage patterns of the 2030-ies into account when they're designing things? Any web pages optimized to be consumed by AI:s running on quantum computers embedded in people's underwear? If not, what's their excuse?

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.