I think this is dependent on reading strategy, which is dependent on cognitive style. For someone who skims a lot, they are frequently making active decisions about what to read while reading, so they’re skilled at this and not bothered by footnotes. I love footnotes. This style may be more characteristic of a fast-attention cognitive style (and ADHD-spectrum loosely defined).
For those I like to refer to as attention surplus disorder :) who do not skim much, I can see the problem.
One strategy is to simply not read any footnotes on your first pass. Footnotes are supposed to be optional to understanding the series of ideas in the writing. Then, if you’re intterested enough to get further into details, you go back and read some or all of the footnotes.
I agree that we could use footnotes better by either using them one way and stating it, or providing a brief cue to how it’s used in the text.
I strongly disagree that footnotes as classically used are not useful. And having any sort of hypertext improves the situation.
Footnotes are usually used to mean “here are some more thoughts/facts/claims related to those you just read before the footnote mark”. Sometimes those will be in a whole different reference. After you glance at a couple, you know how this author is using them.
Appropriate use of footnotes is part of good writing. As such, it’s dependent on the topic, the author, the reader, and their goals in writing/reading. And thus very much a matter of individual taste and opinion.
Endnotes of varied use, without two-way hypertext links, on the other hand, should die in a fire.
My family has jokingly referred to me having ‘attention surplus disorder’ my entire life. Your description is indeed accurate. I don’t usually skim, and having my train-of-thought focus broken feels quite disruptive.
On the other hand, I don’t mind endnotes. I just save them to the end, and read them all then, updating my memory of the document I just read accordingly.
I think this is dependent on reading strategy, which is dependent on cognitive style. For someone who skims a lot, they are frequently making active decisions about what to read while reading, so they’re skilled at this and not bothered by footnotes. I love footnotes. This style may be more characteristic of a fast-attention cognitive style (and ADHD-spectrum loosely defined).
For those I like to refer to as attention surplus disorder :) who do not skim much, I can see the problem.
One strategy is to simply not read any footnotes on your first pass. Footnotes are supposed to be optional to understanding the series of ideas in the writing. Then, if you’re intterested enough to get further into details, you go back and read some or all of the footnotes.
I agree that we could use footnotes better by either using them one way and stating it, or providing a brief cue to how it’s used in the text.
I strongly disagree that footnotes as classically used are not useful. And having any sort of hypertext improves the situation.
Footnotes are usually used to mean “here are some more thoughts/facts/claims related to those you just read before the footnote mark”. Sometimes those will be in a whole different reference. After you glance at a couple, you know how this author is using them.
Appropriate use of footnotes is part of good writing. As such, it’s dependent on the topic, the author, the reader, and their goals in writing/reading. And thus very much a matter of individual taste and opinion.
Endnotes of varied use, without two-way hypertext links, on the other hand, should die in a fire.
My family has jokingly referred to me having ‘attention surplus disorder’ my entire life. Your description is indeed accurate. I don’t usually skim, and having my train-of-thought focus broken feels quite disruptive.
On the other hand, I don’t mind endnotes. I just save them to the end, and read them all then, updating my memory of the document I just read accordingly.