[dokuwiki] Re: Footnote fix, identical footnotes amalgamated

Hi,

I didn't mean to imply in my original reply (way back in the midst of those
> >) that footnotes shouldn't appear at the bottom of the page - both in the
screen page and on the printed version.  I think they should.  I do think we
can come up with something in addition to that for displayed pages,
something that takes advantage of the extra abilities of the web browser.

As you mention, using the title attribute isn't appropriate as footnotes can
contain complex wiki markup.

Using :hover (and for accessibility :focus) or :active will be tricky.
- strictly <a> elements can't include other <a> elements where as a footnote
can include them, which would necessitate putting the :hover on another
element.
- IE has no support for :hover on elements besides <a>, which would mean
javascript or the whatever:hover behaviour. Support for :focus and :active
on other elements is limited.

All of which suggests, that any in-situ footnotes should be handled by
javascript.  Javascript also has the advantage that footnotes wouldn't need
to appear twice, the javascript could locate the footnote and display a copy
of it.

As for whether the amalgamation at the bottom of the page should be:

1), 3) a footnote
2) another footnote

or

1) a footnote
2) another footnote
3) refer ftn. 1)

I think there are pros and cons to each method.  If there are many large
footnotes, method two could require two mouse clicks to get to the footnote
from the original page reference.  Method one could make it difficult to
locate the footnote at the bottom of the page as its number is now out of
order.  How likely is that circumstance to occur?

My personal view - at present :) is
- footnotes at bottom of page using the second method above.
- links on footnotes get replaced by javascript on click method which can
display the footnote insitu.

For now, I have incorporated both methods with a crude insitu javascript
fired popup on my test page
http://wiki.jalakai.co.uk/dokuwiki/doku.php/test2  Its best to view the
javascript in FF, I am having trouble with my js regular expressions in
other win browsers (IE & Opera) so they aren't stripping out unneeded
backlinks.

If there is consensus, or an Andi inspired decision :) I can forward a patch
shortly after.

Cheers,

Chris



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dokuwiki-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dokuwiki-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Anika Henke
> Sent: 25 July 2005 03:13
> To: dokuwiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [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
>

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

Other related posts: