Hi @check2020de,
Combined footnotes are raising so much criticism we don’t even know whether the actual behavior should be maintained and debugged or improved otherwise.
Meanwhile the best would be to make every note unique. We don’t have the page URL, but as a rule of thumb:
- In the image caption, the footnote may provide the image’s exact location as a page number or figure number;
- In the 2???occurrence I’d suggest no changes, since this is the main citation;
- In the next (3??) instance, there may be a page number or quotation that the reader might be interested in, much appreciate the extra information and welcome the added value.
That’s at least how I’m doing and heavily recommending as online/onscreen publishing best practice.
Please consider the following on today’s mobile-first web: Even if each footnote had its individual backlink (which in the current implementation they don’t), these would be so close to each other that a mobile user would have a hard time sorting out and hit the right one when touching the cluster. If they were combined in a single number, e.g. using names as suggested by another user and seen in Wikipedia and elsewhere, the reader is left without many clues about what tiny letter they need to click to get back where they started off. By contrast, when footnotes are unique in footnotes
, the back-button extends over the entire table-cell the number sits in.
That’s the best we can advise right now, and we strive to provide the optimal experience for your visitors and to our users.
But please keep feeling free to disagree and comment.
Best regards.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by
pewgeuges.