|
|
Posted by dorayme on 04/03/07 21:36
In article
<1175619196.045053.285060@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 3 Apr, 17:02, James Hutton <james.hut...@dsl.NOSPAM.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Currently I've got the dates in reverse order, ie, the oldest
> > at the bottom of the page and the latest at the top of the page.
>
> Chronological is the best choice for order.
>
> Reverse chronological ... benefit only applies if "latest"
> is of significantly more interest than the others, i.e. it supercedes
> the others (warnings) or is probably of more immediate interest
> (emails).
>
> Any time you're looking at a sequence of _multiple_ items, stick with
> forward chronology.
There is a third way, generally speaking, (OP's context might
need to be either one way or another and not this third?). In
some pages, eg. a page with a directory of newletters over a
number of years for some organization, it is useful to put the
listing link of the most recent at the top and then the rest,
including a repeat of the latest, in chronological order below.
This is an ideal context for this, but the idea can be used for
other less clear cut ones. If unsure, do it along these lines, as
it is likely to be more advantageous than not.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|