[dokuwiki] Re: Footnote fix, identical footnotes amalgamated

Hi!

> > > Thanks for the patch, but there is one problem: It breaks the
> > > backlinks for footnotes. Usually you click the footnote
> > > number to jump to the footnote text (#fnX). There you can
> > > click the number again to jump back (#fntX). But with the
> > > patch this backlink isn't unique anymore. I guess a better
> > > approach would be giving out unique numbers as before, but
> > > aggregate them in the bottom like this:
> > >
> > > --------
> > > 1) a single footnote
> > > 2), 5) another footnote referenced twice
> > > 3) foo
> > > 4) bar


In books it is not done that way either. AFAIK you write something like:
--------
1) a single footnote
2) another footnote referenced twice
3) foo
4) bar
5) see ftn. 1)

But on the screen it probably does not make much sense anymore!?
In the web we have got more possibilities to reference than in a book.
Footnotes are some kind of archetypal hyperlinks. When the same footnote
appears, say, more than thrice a page, they should possibly be replaced by a
link!


> > Two points occur to me
> >
> > (1) conventional footnotes are mainly useful on a printed page.  In
> > which case linking back to the original isn't an issue.


I agree. We should not imitate each function of books on the web. We often
have to rethink ... (Paper is not Screen. At least that is what all the
programmers tell all designers out there -- everytime. ;-))

Despite possible improvements, I would not complain if the current footnote
behaviour in DokuWiki is kept, though.


> > (2) in a web setting, the footnote would probably best be handled as a
> > small insitu popup either on hover or on click.
> >
> > If constrained to use a more conventional approach, yes I think your
> > idea is probably best.  However, in a web setting, requiring a user to
> > click to view a footnote then to click to regain the original position
> > in the text doesn't seem ideal.


Yes, that is also an usability (and accessibility?) issue ...


> > What do you think of revealing a div containing the rendered footnote
> > on hover (or click) and showing the footnotes without any links at the
> > bottom of the page?
>
> Well, there are three points that might speak against a floating div
>
> 1) I'd like to keep viewing a page free of needed JavaScript (it's fine as
addition but shouldn't be needed).


It does not have to be done with JavaScript. A simple css-hover should do. I
will attach an example.
(Another idea would be the title attribute. But if the content of the
footnote is too space consuming and because the corresponding tooltip is
only temporarily shown, that would be insufficient.)

------- html -------
<p>This text contains a <a href="#" title="this is not a link">footnote<dfn>
A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a book or document
that comments on, and may cite a reference for, a part of the main text and
is normally flagged by a superscript number within the main text.</dfn></a>
which is only here for the sake of it.</p>

------- /html -------

To use the dfn-tag is just an idea ... It would still mark the footnote text
as something different in browsers which are incapable of css. Although I do
not know if its usage is not too incorrect here!?
And one problem is the footnote marked as a link, although it is none ...


------- css -------
a:link dfn, a:visited dfn {
 display:none;
}
a:hover dfn, a:active dfn, a:focus dfn {
 display:block;
 position:absolute;
 margin: 1.5em;
 padding:0.5em;
 width: 10.0em;
 font-size:90%;
 text-decoration:none;
 font-style:italic;
 font-weight:normal;
 background-color:#dee7ec;
 color:#000;
 border:1px dashed #8cacbb;
 z-index:100;
}
a:link, a:visited {
 color:#436976;
 text-decoration:none;
}
a:hover, a:active {
 color:#000;
 background-color: transparent;
 /*important: background + color is needed for hover*/
 text-decoration:underline;
}

------- /css -------

In the print.css the footnote text would be treated differently, of course.


> 2) The page should be printable as well


In the printable version the text should be always visible, of course. Not
only when hovered on.
Maybe it is best to keep the current DokuWiki footnote behaviour for the
printing and adjust a hover thingy for the screen. (Trouble is, then the
data would be kept twice on the same page ...)
(I tried to adjust a print.css to the above example, so that the footnote
texts are at the bottom. But I was not successful so far.)


> 3) Footnotes in DokuWiki can contain anything and thus could be very
large - > This could make a floating div impracticable


Yes, the question is where to put the div!?
Making it visible somewhere at the margin would make it template/design
dependent.
And letting it hover above the normal text (as the above example does) would
make the text behind temporarily invisible.

I decided the second to be the lesser evil, obviously.


The good thing is: Whatever we will do about the matter, DokuWiki is not
worse than Wikipedia (in footnote behaviour). ;-)
Wikipedia treats footnotes about the same way as DokuWiki does. Although
that does not mean one cannot do it better, it still relieves the problem
... :-)

My personal problem with footnotes is that I do not really understand what
they are for!?
  * You can use them for references and sources. In a browser environment
you should use here hyperlinks instead.
  * And you can use them for additional notes, comments, explanations that
are important enough to be written, but not important enough to be allowed
to disturb the normal text flow.

In the last case: Where do you need to read this extra bit of information?
It must be somewhere in sight of its originator. (In a book you do not need
to turn a page, but in DokuWiki you most likely have to click to the bottom
of the page.)

What do *you* need footnotes for? Any usage beyond the ones mentioned?


All in all I am not too convinced that there is a solution that will satisfy
everyone. (Is there ever?)
I am still thinking hard about it ...


Anika

-- 
DokuWiki mailing list - more info at
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:mailinglist

Other related posts: