- From: Kassia Krozser <ktwice@pandemic.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:19:51 -0700
- CC: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > >> oh no, i don't think i can hack them. what i'm more concerned about is: >> does a footnote that, is changed to an endnote change in content and >> meaning? > Still no answer on this then? Shame, it does pique my interest... Setting aside the fact that many readers find endnotes irritating because they require constant back and forth (or, if one is reading online, scrolling up and down or switching between screens), resulting in the loss of flow when reading, footnotes are generally short and concise, in keeping with their position on a page. They are best used for citing sources and short commentary necessary to strengthen an argument being made in the text. Footnotes that take up considerable page space are considered bad form. Endnotes have the advantage of including more detailed information such as tables, graphs, and lengthy quotations. They also have a disadvantage in that readers require sufficient context in the note to understand what the reference means, so they may require attention when written. If a writer uses endnotes instead of footnotes, he or she should be aware that many people don't do the necessary back and forth while reading, so the text also needs to be written so that the argument is clearly understood without benefit of the note. The choice of using endnotes versus footnotes is largely a matter of style, and certain disciplines seem to prefer one style over another. Some works include both, leveraging the strengths of each type of note. However, when making a choice, it's important to keep the reader in mind -- if a work consists largely of references that point reader back to source material without further detail, endnotes don't make sense. If the references contain detailed information or further elucidation, then footnotes don't make sense. k2
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 18:20:16 UTC