Conventional footnotes considered harmful
post by dkl9 · 2024-10-01T14:54:01.732Z · LW · GW · 5 commentsThis is a link post for https://dkl9.net/essays/footnote_harm.html
Contents
5 comments
Writers use footnotes — equally, endnotes — intending that they be optional for the reader. A note will hold a citation, technicality, or explanation, any of which is of interest to only some readers. This is a useful tactic, in principle.
Footnotes are indicated with ordinal symbols. A cue to a note may be a number, letter, or sequential symbol (commonly, *, †, ‡, etc). In any case, the reference only indicates where the note is, in the sequence of all notes present, rather than anything of the note's content.
So, if you wonder whether you'd care for the content of a note, you have to look at the note, switching to the bottom of the page and breaking your focus. Thus the notion that footnotes are optional is an illusion. The false option is even worse in the case of endnotes in printed works; there, to get to the note, you have to flip across many pages.
Good solutions exist, but are underused:
- Decide, for each detail, whether to include it in the main text or leave it out entirely, rather than leaving some as "optional" in notes. I usually do this myself. Parentheses and em-dashes can help when a detail is hard to work in grammatically.
- Include, in the cue to each note, a hint as to its content, besides just the ordinal pointer. A one-letter abbreviation, standardised thruout the work, may work well, e.g.:
- "c" for citation supporting the marked claim
- "d" for a definition of the marked term
- "f" for further, niche information extending the marked section
- "t" for a pedantic detail or technicality modifying the marked clause
- Commit to only use notes for one purpose — say, only definitions, or only citations. State this commitment to the reader.
5 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by cubefox · 2024-10-01T16:11:03.126Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So, if you wonder whether you'd care for the content of a note, you have to look at the note, switching to the bottom of the page and breaking your focus. Thus the notion that footnotes are optional is an illusion.
I agree with this. Too many footnotes can really slow readers down when they have to check each for whether it's relevant.
Similar points apply to adding too many unnecessary links. Specifically links where it isn't clear where they lead and what point is made in the link target, as in the previous sentence. (Do they provide a citation? Important additional explanation? Just an allusion to some related idea? So the same issue you point out for footnotes.) Like footnotes, many such links should probably be left out entirely, because they add too little value compared to the amount of reading disruption they add.
For other links, it should be made clear in the text what their purpose is or where they lead, unlike in the example sentence above. So that people can safely ignore them if they don't need them.
Moreover, links to (e.g.) Wikipedia, which explain a simple concept, can often be sufficiently replaced with a short one line explanation inside the main text, perhaps in parentheses. This doesn't require readers to engage with a whole new webpage which likely contains way more information than necessary.
comment by RamblinDash · 2024-10-01T16:45:58.854Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Footnotes are good in translated works. I read the 3-body trilogy translated into English, and it was very helpful to have notes from the translator explaining certain points of cultural context that a Chinese reader would be expected to be familiar with.
comment by FlorianH (florian-habermacher) · 2024-10-01T15:16:07.834Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Agree that cued FNs would often be useful innovation I've not yet seen. Nevertheless, this statement
So, if you wonder whether you'd care for the content of a note, you have to look at the note, switching to the bottom of the page and breaking your focus. Thus the notion that footnotes are optional is an illusion.
ends with a false conclusion; most footnotes in text I have read were optional and I'm convinced I'm happy to not have read most of them indeed. FNs, already as they are, are thus indeed highly "optional" and potentially very helpful - in many, maybe most, cases, for many, maybe most, readers.
Replies from: steve2152↑ comment by Steven Byrnes (steve2152) · 2024-10-01T15:45:04.063Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
cued FNs would often be useful innovation I've not yet seen
wikipedia articles sometimes distinguish notes and references within the label ([Note 5] versus [5]), e.g. here.