Re: lynx-dev hidden links

[Eduardo Chappa L.]

*** Klaus Weide (address@hidden) wrote in the Lynx list on Jun 16, 2000:

:) On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Eduardo Chappa L. wrote:
:) 
:) > If there is something that I do not understand is why do you have to think
:) > that one site is not enough, one site is one example. I gave an example of
:) > http://cnn.com, 
:) 
:) So you agree that "one site is not enough", otherwise you wouldn't feel
:) the need to bring in more examples. :)

I never said that. You still don't get it. One site is an example, and I
have given example sof many sites that do use them for reasons that are
unknown to me, and I hope to you too.

:) In the CNN site they don't result from images without alt attributes.
:) They result from images with explicit alt="" attributes.

Pardon me? let's see, as of this morning I see this link:

   http://www.cnn.com/cnnsi/golf/2000/us_open/index.html

and the text linking to it is:

<a href="/cnnsi/golf/2000/us_open/index.html">
<img src="/images/0006/cnnfront_plus_tiger.jpg"  
WIDTH=55 HEIGHT=45 ALT="" BORDER="0" align=right
hspace="2" vspace="2"></a><DIV class="pad">
<a href="/cnnsi/golf/2000/us_open/index.html">
Read about Tiger Woods' U.S. Open tour de force</a>

I see an ALT="" very clear there, I hope this is more than enough of an
example. Please don't argue back that there is a link text link to it,
that's not the point. The point is that if there is a hidden link,
information *may* be lost.

[snip]

:) So, 9 "hidden" links, in addition to 252 regular ones.  Looking closer,
:) 5 are very dubious-looking URLs that _I_ normally would never follow
:) ('Type=click&ProfileID=1018...&Redirect=...', no thanks), certainly not
:) without a clear indication in the context that tells me what it's good
:) for (and which is of course missing - we're talking about hidden links,
:) after all).  The others (and at least one of those 5) are repeated as
:) normal links.

So you are saying:

 - Out of "n" links "m" are links that *I* would never follow, therefore
*NOBODY* should/has to follow, therefore it is not necessary to warn
anyone about it. Pardon me? are you Bill Gates, what's good for you is
good for the rest of the world?


:) So you already have 252 links to follow, and you still think that's
:) not enough...  Aren't you happy lynx is hiding at least some of the
:) clutter?  I am, usually.
:) 

The problem is not how many links a  web page has, that's pretty
condescending, you should worry that all links should be accessible in an
easy way, what you browse is just one example of what a person can do, not
what everyone should do.

:) > I do not see why you insist
:) > that this is not important, the bottom line is that lynx is losing part of
:) > its usefulness not reporting that there are hidden links, some of them
:) > we may assume were intended to be seen. 
:) 
:) You may assume, but in my experience the assumption usually turns out to
:) be wrong.  (sole exception: the pages given by AF)

Is't not an assumption, it's a fact. 

:) >   What I am suggesting is that lynx gives somehow an information which
:) > turns out to be useful, any reason why not?
:) 
:) Because nobody who would potentially do it has found it important
:) enough?

Maybe nobody has realized its importance...

:) Because adding some cryptic indicator (like a character on the top line)
:) wouldn't achieve what you want 

Sure it would!, can you explain why not?

:) a more explicit message would be (a) more trouble to add,

Computers figure out that so fast you wouldn't even notice it.

:) and would (b)
:) just clutter the interface and would "punish" most users who have no
:) interest in seeing it?

Then make it configurable, a command line option or whatever you think
appropiate.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/


; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden