- 0.0028 on my MacBook pro screen

- 0.0045 on my Dell monitor

- 0.0033 on my Pixel 10 pro

And those scores are pretty consistent.

Content-Security-Policy: require-trusted-types-for 'script'

…then it blocks you from passing regular strings to the methods that don't sanitize.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45680187

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

I considered the 'vs' approach, but I worried that there might be a lot of iterations where one or two of the options would be things that the person didn't understand, or didn't care about.

How do you feel about something like this: The user goes through the long list, picking what they understand and don't dislike, then the 'vs' system is there for helping determine the order of those items. Then the user gets the ranking which they can tweak.

We've already been looking at the results, and it has influenced the direction of multiple vendors in the process, but of course it isn't the only thing we look at.

We're going to continue to look at this throughout the process, so it's still worth getting a list together.

Whether we can release the raw results of this (and to what degree), will involve discussion between browser vendors, so it isn't something we can commit to right now. I know that's not… great… but it's a delicate process (one that I'm still personally getting used to - it's my first year 'on the inside').

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/anchor

The `margin:0` issue was particularly frustrating & imo should have been covered in the article, as it's a real gotcha when trying to use popover & anchor positioning in combination.

Totally honestly, it was a lot of work, I got bored, and it was diminishing returns for the later parts.

That particular example on mobile falls back to a revealing pattern, which is pretty good.

It still has the problem where it's just a test of your curiosity. You don't really know what the supplementary content covers until you expand it. The link text is just a superscript number which is kinda useless.

This is why I prefer the solutions in the article where the supplementary content has a heading that hints at the content.

Yes. I was referring to the uselessness of the linking text being a superscript number, which is as bad, if not worse, than "click here".

> While this claim is sound, it is irrelevant because a footnote link shouldn't need context; the sentence provides it.

It doesn't. The sentence gives you information about the general topic, but not about the content of the footnote, and if it's worth visiting. Whereas the note & details examples have a heading that describes the topic of the supplementary content.

> 1) All three options are more distracting because they occupy more space. And (ii) and (iii) add color. And I'd guess that readers are more likely to unintentionally skim

Are they too distracting or too easy to ignore? Make your mind up!

> In fact, a footnote occupies the minimum space possible.

Using smaller text is a bug, not a feature.

> 2) Option (ii) adds lots of unseemly vertical space to the webpage.

Vertical space is cheap. And in the example it's hardly lots.

> 3) Option (iii) moves the webpage text below the note up and down. This interferes more with the reading experience than does the static popover.

It only moves it down, and then you can read the content in flow.

> 4) Options (ii) and (iii) are not portable over copy paste. If you copy a webpage with these elements into another file, you'll have to manually rearrange them to appear as actual footnotes.

That's a feature, not a bug. Content is in the correct order.

> 5) All options, as implemented by the author, eliminate the key-value nature of footnotes. One cannot refer to a particular parenthetical, `note`, or `