I’ve moved papermail to a self-hosted WordPress website. From now on, feel free to direct your reading eyes to http://papermail.me.
25% off Roku 2 XD. $35 off Roku 2 XS Angry Birds Edition. Great deals.
25% off Roku 2 XD.
$35 off Roku 2 XS Angry Birds Edition.
These days, it seems of common practice to saturate blog posts with links to tags or prior posts on the blog. This is annoying and distasteful to read.
I’m not talking about blogs that have subtle link colors, because these obviously aren’t prominent enough to be recognized so easily. I’m talking about links in posts like this at 9to5Mac and this from The Next Web. What is the point in this? To generate more page views for your blog? Stop being selfish and give the readers some slack.
It’s especially annoying when an author goes so far as to hyperlink an entire phrase in order to get the point across. (Rather ugly, isn’t it?)
And, regarding sources: why not just put them at the bottom of the page within brackets like the authors here do? It’s a lot easier to read and doesn’t make the entire post unreadable and blue.
Another example can be found here. Look at that entire second paragraph. It’s saturated with ugly orange (that’s their customized link color) text. This does provide the reader with some background information, but why on earth must we see it all in such a horrible format? Try adding a “related posts” section to the bottom of the post or something. It looks far more tidy and overall readable.
Unsophisticated text is readable. Readable is nice, yet simple is dull. You should always aim for the harmonic place between readable and simple.
On here, I try to make links and other forms of decorative text somewhat unnoticeable so that, when reading, things are not so disturbing.
Yes, this post did have quite a few links in it, but the point was to show you what it looks like. It’s ugly.
Cody Fink, writing for MacStories:
TweetDeck has been greatly reduced in functionality, and I’m not sure what its purpose is if it remains this way.It’s obvious that Twitter made a bad move even buying TweetDeck, but it’s too late to change it now.
It’s just another pathetic reproduction of what Flipboard did right. Google is traditionally known for their failure to create something completely original, and that’s what gives them a bad name.
Google+ wasn’t “revolutionary,” per se, but it was a step in the right direction. What they’ve done since then has been a disaster.
Benjamin Brooks, writing for The Brooks Review:
What is absolutely crazy — what drives me nuts — is the ditching of the swipe-to-act gesture. In previous versions you could swipe left or right on a tweet to slide open an action menu. From there you could quickly favorite, retweet, Instapaper, or reply to the tweet.
That was the single most fantastic thing about the app.
Now it’s gone.
Twitter’s updates, and actions in general, are not progressive steps, but rather retrograde ones. It’s sad to see, and I’m extremely disappointed, but that’s why great developers like Tapbots made Tweetbot.
Mobiledia, contributing to Forbes:
A new chip-making material may compete against silicon, according to researchers, leading to smaller, thinner and possibly flexible mobile devices.I hope they’re snappy as well.
Since when is one of Phil Schiller’s tweets worthy of a 307-word blog post?
It’s the best book of the year, according to the sales count. However, it wasn’t a 5-star book in any way.
Of the four major U.S. national cell-phone standard service providers, Verizon again scored the highest in this year’s Ratings, followed closely by Sprint. Survey respondents gave very good scores to Verizon for texting and data service satisfaction, as well for staff knowledge.
So, what’s new?