I appreciate the brainstorming. Go go future dreaming!
But we would *really* appreciate some typographical expertise/testing on the existing problem.
This will be particularly relevant in the Typography Update, and I'd suggest it's exactly the kind of detail that ought to be: * tested * understood (awareness) * documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
eg. How will it affect all the wikis which Do use the arrow, and have done so for many years, eg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cite_references_link_one https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cite_references_link_one https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cite_references_link_one https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cite_references_link_one etc etc etc. (ie. MOST of the 500+ wikis)
*TL;DR* In case anyone didn't click through the screenshot links that I and Matma provided, here's my view (ubuntu), and then Matma's view with and without ClearType (windowsXP): http://i.imgur.com/NI1h0wz.png http://i.imgur.com/lS6OqUK.png http://i.imgur.com/HN5HIC2.png
Here's the thread, for feedback on the problem at hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Cite_messages#__Testing_and_summary_...
Thanks :)
On 13-11-13 09:32 AM, Nick White wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:21:31AM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
I would strongly consider totally redoing how references are displayed to use a popup light box with citation cut n paste tools.
That is a nice idea indeed, but don't forget print views. Though actually I suppose an arrow isn't needed there either, but if the reference system is made more dynamic and exciting someone needs to remember to not make things worse for paper users :)
or non-javascript users.
Or the people who enjoy being scrolled to the bottom, to see the other nearby Notes/Citations/References (Remember that <ref> can link to many different types of things: some only 3 words long; some 5 paragraphs long), and then click their "Back" button (or mouse button/gesture/etc) to go back up to the original location.