2009/4/16 chasy <[email protected]>:
> I guess my mode of operation is, "if I don't like it, I don't read it." I
> don't really agree that people's entries should be forced behind a cut just
> because *I* don't want to read it. I have friends who use LoudTwitter (yes,
> it drives me crazy too, because my thought is, if I'm interested in what you
> have to say on Twitter, I will follow you), who post about the specific
> details of their sex life, who share a YouTube video almost every day, etc.
> --> but if I don't want that stuff on my reading page, that's on *me*, not
> them. Either I unsubscribe, put up and shut up (as gossymer so eloquently
> put it *wink*), or simply SKIP it.
>
> I don't understand why this--^ isn't an acceptable option. It's not that
> inconvenient to scroll past the "offending" entry.
I don't understand why people have such a problem with doing so,
either, but the fact they do, I think, is why, if it's possible to
have a DW setting that doesn't require manually inserting .loudtwitter
{ display: none!important } into one's stylesheet to hide LoudTwitter,
or whatever, then it would be possible. As rho said, for the reader
to hide what they don't want to read. That even removes the skipping
part and "it's a one-time setting - do it now, and you'll never have
to skip again" is /such/ a convincing argument, even for the laziest
among us.
--
Katie Sutton
www.xugglybug.co.uk
"The ‘Net is a waste of time, and that’s exactly what’s right about
it." ~ William Gibson
_______________________________________________
dw-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
