With people living longer than ever, experts say this is the first generation that might care for its parents as long as it cared for its children. It’s something that has changed the life of former TV anchor Joan Lunden.
because everyone knows it only matters to americans if famous people do it.
Curators’ Code is (in theory) a project, a code snippet, and I think, a self-promotional concern and movement, which encourages online authors to credit their sources.
It is birdshot-riddled with holes and bad ideas.
I am more than a little surprised something this made it past the ideas-over-beers stage. It’s clearly an idea without much necessity, because it already exists.
More than surprised, I’m confused it happened, because it’s so clearly misthought, and by people we know are usually decent critical thinkers.
Curators’ Code’s premise is that web authors need specific symbols to attribute previous sources. There are two kinds, one standing for “via” and one standing for “hat tip.” Okay, with you so far, although I don’t think it’s necessary, because those concepts already have short, easy-to-type and easy-to-remember names, and have for years.
- Problem one: the symbols are impossible to reach from the keyboard, and therefore require the user to either type in the characters’ Unicode value or use a bookmarklet.
- Problem two: not every user will be able to see these characters, because they’re pulled from specific fonts.
- Problem three: the symbols, if my Googling serves me correctly, already have uses. (caveat: I’m not sure if that one’s an actual problem.)
- Problem four: using the bookmarklet to insert the attribution code automatically inserts a link (from the actual attribution character) to the site talking about the attribution characters and its creators. This makes no sense at all, and is unbelievably arrogant: to stick yourself in the middle of another conversation to talk about your own project, when it’s totally unrelated, is unacceptable. It’s just advertising. This is my biggest problem with it.
- Problem five: bashful and inexperienced users, of which there are many many more than most web content Curators consider, already have a hard time understanding what linking on the web actually means, much less implies. So the proposal is to add another layer of linguistic/visual complexity by embedding an irrelevant, potentially invisible, easy-to-accidentally-click link next to the relevant link, in the form of a symbol that makes no visual sense without lengthy education? awesome!
- Problem six (and the biggest logistical problem): it’s easier to type “via” or “hat tip,” or “ht”. Many more readers already understand that, and have been using these tropes for years.
So, one more time, can someone tell me how this notion is anything more than a design process that got out of hand, without being shot down? Because I just did, six times over, easily.
so, maybe it’s time to re-open this bitch. a three-year break seems reasonable. yes?
have you seen a more perfect picture of modern adam and eve? have you?
blatantly stolen from jlt’s flickr stream, which is usually nowhere near this trashy.
