[Imc-uk-features] objection to hidden posts makeover

[euan2000 at onetel.com]

I see that one of the topics for Bristol meeting is on how hidden 
should hidden
be, but for what it is worth now, I would agree with Owens concerns here, if
nothing else, maybe we could get rid of the background image? that is the most
annoying bit for me.




Quoting owen at riseup.net:

> I'm afraid I don't like the new style of hidden article pages.
>
> If someone has arrived at one of these articles the chances are
> it's because they would actually like to read it either out of
> curiosity or genuine interest. We really don't need to be breathing
> down people's necks with that great big heavy black notice at the top
> and the background all the way through.
>
> And surely indymedia isn't the kind of site when anyone should ever
> have to scroll through a legal disclaimer *before* reaching the content?
> If we really need that disclaimer, let's shove it down at the bottom in
> small type.
>
> My proposal:
> -Get rid of the 'Hidden Article' heading
> -Cut down the blurb to: 'This posting has been hidden because
> it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.'
> (with link to editorial guidelines, as we have now)
> -If the rest of the blurb (legal disclaimer stuff) is really
> needed (and I say it isn't) then put it at the bottom in small type.
> -Get rid of the background image.
>
> That way people reading the page still won't be able to miss the
> fact that it's a hidden article, it just won't be so 'in your face'.
>
> Owen the alarm clock dodging technique
>
> PS Sorry if there have already been discussions about this...
> ===
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial list
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>