A few months ago John Gruber at Daring Fireball wrote a post on his implementation of footnotes on his site. Joe Clark and a few other chimed in. Gruber responded with "Note on Notes". In Gruber's defense, it's quite unnecessary to do something truly innovative with a footnote. The issue for me is not how we code footnotes; Until there's an XHTML spec that specifically addresses footnoting, web developers will argue at each other indefinitely over the techincal aspects of it. In my opinion, the important questions are why we want to use footnotes on the web, and what we actually put in the footnotes.

Of course, the problems associated with footnoting on the web have not been lost on some designers. Paula Petrik has an excellent tutorial on different methods for implementing footnotes on the web. Besides outlining various strategies for coding the notes, Paula expresses the reason why footnotes are useful on the web:

First, superscripting serves as a visual marker; it signals to the reader that the material presented in the preceding paragraph, block quotation, sentence, or inline quotation requires attribution or documents the basis for assertion. These concepts form the bedrock of scholarship and their typographical display should reflect that importance. Raising the reference mark above a line of text serves this purpose by setting the attribution or documentation apart.

Second, superscripting serves as quick, visual shorthand. Because the eye travels from one superscript to the next in the body of the text, a reader can easily locate a signpost on the evidentiary trail. Placing a reference mark inline forces the reader to hunt through the text for the scholarly apparatus.

Third, superscripting on the web preserves a print standard for material that will ultimately be printed. Most scholars in the humanities prefer to print their material and avoid downloading files when possible. Including superscripting in the screen version saves both the reader and designer a step or two.

The problem for me is not how we present footnotes, but what we put in footnotes. This, I think, has not been addressed in any significant manner. (Of course, if it has, please pass the reference on to me). In print, footnotes are used two ways: 1) To cite reference material, or to give credit for particular ideas, 2) to extend the argument of a particular passage, which gives the reader more information without breaking up the flow of the main text. Both instances are easy to implement on the web, but how well do they really aid the reader?

One problem arising out of citing reference material is how to use hyperlinking in the contents of footnotes. Most blog posts, for example, are riddled with links to other blog posts and web pages. Yet introducing footnotes adds a new element of hyperlinking (and footnotes are, in essence, hyperlinks, whether in online or in print, but that's an argument for another day). Do we want to refrain from hyperlinking to other materials directly in the text of the document and put the links in footnotes? Do we leave hyperlinks to online resources out of the footnotes, and use links in the main text to refer to them? Whatever path is chosen, it should be used consistently, for the sake of the reader. This problem is especially acute when online and print sources are cited. It's bad practice, I think, to link directly to an online source in the text while relegating print sources to the footnotes. It's more useful (and more intutiative for readers) to see all of the cited material in the footnotes. Yet this significantly downplays the power of hyperlinking. I think footnoting in blog posts would be nice for the second use I outline above; That is, to extend the argument of a particular statement without interrupting the flow of the main text. But using footnotes to reference sources seems problematic, as far as consistency is concerned. Any thoughts?