On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Dalton<[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/7/24 Brian <[email protected]>: >> In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace! > > Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to > reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force > attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.
(Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this, it's probably absolutely hideous for all kinds of technical reasons) Eh, backspace isn't much of a difficulty. It could probably also be made to only trigger for text over some particular size. You're not likely to have a legal obligation for a couple of words, but if you copy several paragraphs you'll have both a legal and an ethical obligation to provide some form of attribution. I could see more practical issues with it complicating moving text around in articles. The applicable principle of usability is that the default behaviour should be what is the usually the right behaviour and you should be able to override it when it isn't. Attribute on copy fits that principle. A while back I put in a JS kludge on commons that made right clicking on thumbnails remind you once and only once (via a cookie) that you can save a higher resolution version from the image page. Erik eventually removed it based on the completely reasonable complaint that it left the same kind of bad taste as sites that totally disable image saving. So, how does this solution avoid 'feeling' like sites that do obnoxious things? I notice that my browser spins busy whenever I highlight. Is that okay? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
