On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:55:30PM -0400, Charles Fry wrote: > The issues that bother me are: > > I constantly find myself cutting and pasting from the online scriptures > into documents I am editing. Doing this with footnotes enabled is a > trecherous endeaver, as the footnote letters get copied into the text > which is pasted. I just noticed the "Hide footnote indicators" option, > but that actually turns footnotes off. It would be nice to have an > option (even as a default!) which turned off the footnote letters, but > left the links. In my mind, the letters themselves are a remnant of the > printed version of the scriptures, and are antiquated by the use of > hyperlinks.
I agree with this. Is there a reason for the letters any longer? They get in the way, and make the spacing between the lines uneven. My preference would be for the hyperlinks to exist with a subtle colour change and no underline (without me having to change my browser settings or impose my own CSS on the page), and for the "One footnote at a time" option (which seems to have gone away) to be the default or even the only footnote display option. > The current display format is highly unreadable. It may be sufficient > for reference, but it is quite ill-adapted for online reading. I don't > know what the best solution is, but some possibilities include: thiner > single column, multi-column display, paragraph format display. One could > even display the scriptures in fairly thin columns, as is done in our > printed scriptures, with scrolling (perhaps aided by Javascript?) to the > left and right rather than up and down. At this point, I suspect that > almost any change will more readable than the current instantiation. :-) I rarely read more than a couple of chapters online, so I might not be hitting the problems you obviously are, but when I read more than a couple of verses I generally increase the font size such that there are only 8 or so words per line then just slowly work down. That seems to work fine for me. I wouldn't want more than one column. I see no benefits to that. Nor would I want a column of some arbitrary width. I'm quite capable of selecting the width that is best for me. I have a nice 24" widescreen monitor set at 1920x1200. I really don't need someone deciding I can only use 800. And the number of sites which pull that stunt is amazing, but that's a rant for another day. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
