Wednesday, February 28, 2007

guilty as charged: proud screensifter

Seriously, I was completely unaware that the entire world reads the NYT the Internet in a similar fashion.




(I briefly thought about posting the several other versions of the "BBFC!" button that were created during yesterdays online powow, including a turquoise-and-purple version that somehow came about after I sent Kriston a file I forgot to convert to RGB. Look for it in the directors cut of the blogworld, or the liner notes, or whatever. Proud to be part of yr campaign, dude.)

2 comments:

the Nabob said...

True, an explanation of the word “and” is really not required. But having more information on something like the Nikkei Index is helpful when reading an article about a 400 point market drop. It’s not up to the Times to determine the intelligence of their readers or their grasp on vocabulary.

The entire world doesn’t read the internet like this, only people who read it wrong. Once you open your browser, there is no reason to double-click anything on the internet. That’s the way it was designed. Also, highlighting entire paragraphs? Hasn’t humanity been reading black text on a white background since always? What’s so tough?

the g said...

I think it's more of a monitor thing for me - I'm able to focus better on the striking parts of long pieces if I read like that. Double-clicking/highlighting text is a benefit of reading things online, for me at least anyways. If nerds like me were to print out an especially long article, we would prob. highlight on paper if we wanted/needed to. Hasn't humanity been doing that since...uh... the highliter was invented?

Like I told you, I'd be okay with this feature if it was just used for uncommon words (not every "it" "and" or "the" I double click on, accidentally or on-purpose, that brings along the pop-up.) But then, who's responsible for deciding which words get defined? Some online copyeditor? I dunno.