3 ms·
Most of these ux enhancements should be browser addons, in my view. We have gone way beyond what a website should be responsible for versus what’s up to the rea
by pacifika 2y ago
Most of these ux enhancements should be browser addons, in my view. We have gone way beyond what a website should be responsible for versus what’s up to the reader experience to implement.
- zzo38computer 2y agoI agree; the website should not need to be responsible for most of this stuff (and even when it is, the way it works is too messy). (In some cases the document author would still need to specify, e.g. the IDs of headings so that they can be referred to in URLs, but the browser should handle the rest; the author should not also need to add links in the headers.) The table of contents might even be suitable as a built-in feature. Having a progress indicator for only the article and not comments would be possible by using the standard <ARTICLE> command; a browser might choose to (subject to user settings) display a progress bar or scroll bar for the article only. The user can disable the features that they do not want (and/or change the features that they want differently). (Some people will use other file formats and protocols to try to improve this; and, if you like to do, you can even make available multiple protocols and file formats)