Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:14:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Leonard Zettel <zettel@acm.org> Cc: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Mouseover definitions for acronyms (was Re: RFC: initialisms and FDP) Message-ID: <20040718090746.D21197@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <200407181009.59919.zettel@acm.org> References: <20040713074042.GA5126@abigail.blackend.org> <20040718100224.GA84500@abigail.blackend.org> <200407181009.59919.zettel@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Leonard Zettel wrote: > In my opinion, the best thing to do with acronyms is minimize their use. > Remembering what NIS means puts an extra distracting burden on > the reader, especially if they are already struggling to assimilate a > lot of new concepts, which is likely the case, or they wouldn't > be reading the material in the first place. Acronyms and other forms of jargon have a purpose; for instance, an acronym is one "thing" to remember, rather than a phrase. > I am willing to concede that in some cases usage has extended to > the point where the acronym *is* the word (ftp comes to mind). Many of the acronyms for the glossary are like that. While I like the mouseover idea, I don't understand the need for multiple ones. Why not just have the first occurrence of a term be both a link to the glossary and also have the mouseover definition? (I say this having learned the hard way with <application> tags. More than one is visually distracting.) -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040718090746.D21197>