3 ms·
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 his
by 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.
- zogrodea 3y agoThar was the original complaint (and a valid one) at the start of this comment chain, but a further complaint was given about the UX, stating that it had terrible design as links were hard to recognise as links. "How did you even know that? That honestly would not have occurred to me. What terrible UX." That's why you're seeing discussion about UX right now. A different subject is in focus.