I'd say Steve was justified in not providing the link until he'd said what he wanted to say about it. But he didn't need to *tell* us he was doing that, especially in a sentence beginning "please allow me"--I found that annoying. Any reader who wants the link right away and doesn't see it in the first sentence will look for it at the end of the description.

The problem, of course, is that those who would click the link if it were at the beginning would not likely return, because by the time they'd finish playing the immersive game they'd be stressed about how much time had passed. It's a very different situation from linking to a nonimmersive site. Also, the description is well worth reading, so he needs to do whatever he can do to get the reader to read it.

He could have put the link between the two paragraphs, but then he would have risked losing the reader after the first paragraph.

(He overuses parentheses.)

Posted by: kathy henning on June 8, 2002 03:03 AM

 

In cases like this, I'd just put the link into a footnote.

Posted by: LKM on June 8, 2002 03:40 AM

 

It looks daft, he's got an inline link just before that so I don't see any reason to hold the reader back that way, it's vaguely patronising. It looks particularly daft in an article about poor presentation & lack of interactivity in Web news.

BBC News never uses inline links, it lists them down the right of the article. It works reasonably well, and is at least consistent, but often shows itself to be Web-unfriendly when several sites are mentioned within an article.
I suppose they're afraid of confusing novice users, perhaps think inline links are ugly/distracting, and aren't keen to risk losing readers mid-article. And their twitchy, paranoid lawyers probably insist on that little disclaimer alongside all external links (does that kind of clutter serve any real purpose? I doubt it either avoids confusion amongst users or offers meaningful legal protection against silly linking lawsuits).

Posted by: Matt Round on June 8, 2002 05:33 AM

 

IMHO, it shows a certain lack of confidence in his own writing skills. It's as if he's afraid that his article is so uninteresting that people will stop reading what he's got to say, and immediately click away to the linked article. It's like a stage actor telling the audience, "No, please don't leave now. The best part is just coming."

I agree with Kathy. If he wanted to put the link at the end, there was no need to draw attention to it.

I've never understood the importance or need for those stupid disclaimers. I don't actually think that BBC is responsible for content on, say, www.f---edcompany.com

Posted by: MadMan on June 8, 2002 08:28 AM

 

Believe it or not, there are clients (can't name names) who insist upon showing a full page disclaimer every time an external link is clicked on.

If lawyers had their way most of the 'net wouldn't exist. So many people fail to realise lawyers have their own priorities which should be weighed against the (often significant) benefits of disregarding their advice.

Posted by: Matt Round on June 9, 2002 06:12 AM

 

The White House uses a disclaimer page when leaving to go to FirstGov.gov.

I recall seeing the House or Senate using disclaimer pages for a while too. I couldn't find disclaimer pages today, but did come across an odd choice of graphics on Senator Allard's page. Note the position of the American flag in relation to the animated fire.

Posted by: Jack on June 12, 2002 04:40 PM