Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Tastes richer, less filling.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.




Invisible disclaimers or explanations
  (+4, -5)
(+4, -5)
  [vote for,

Humour in a text-only medium is a difficult business - especially if it comes mixed in serious discussion. People can take the comedian at face value and think he's a monster, or simply not get the joke. Some posters have resorted to using <humour> tags and smilies to flag jokes to the easily offended, but a joke is often less funny if it is signposted in this way. The solution - an extension to HTML allows "This is a joke" notices, or even lengthly explanations for those who are humour deprived or slow on the uptake to be embedded into text. In normal viewing, these are completely invisible and do not interfere with the flow of text. However, if you feel like firing off an angry email at that guy who indirectly insulted your mother's favourite hat, or simply want to see if you missed anything, you can click a button on your browser and the author's stated intent will be displayed. Also works for footnotes, spoilers, etc.
electricMonkey, Jul 23 2007

http://www.halfbake...al/help.html#tongue [jutta, Jul 23 2007]

I don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner Bumper_20Sticker_20Internal_20Logic
There's a related idea right across the way [normzone, Jul 24 2007]


       I thought it was a terrible idea until I realized that these tags will not normally be activated. Now I just think it is a bad idea.   

       It's bad because if lots of people really don't get the joke, then it's quite likely that it wasn't a funny or well-calculated joke. The writer should bear the brunt in such cases - it's part of their job.   

       It's bad because if someone is trying to write comedy, they don't need the distraction of having to explain their jokes, or even thinking about how to explain them. Putting an imaginary humourless person on your shoulder is not the way to be inspired.   

       It's bad because, if someone is offended by misunderstanding a gag that is, in fact, funny or tongue-in-cheek, then maybe that person *ought* to get a little riled, bang off an angry letter or two, and get straightened out.   

       It's bad because if someone just doesn't get the point of a gag that is, in fact, funny, then explaining it is just going to make things more painful all round.   

       Sorry, I can see that this is a well-meant idea, but I just think it's bad.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 23 2007

       Am I the only one who can see that this idea was meant as a joke?
phundug, Jul 23 2007

       [Phundug] quite possibly. In which case see para.2 of the foregoing anno.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 23 2007

       Well, they already do this for television (cue the canned laughter to let you know that that line was funny).
normzone, Jul 23 2007

       How about recorded laughter that briefly plays a predetermined amount of time after the reader has opened the file? [-]
nuclear hobo, Jul 23 2007

       Closer, but too simple. There needs to be an eyeball tracking mechanism that cues the laugh track when the appropriate line is read.
normzone, Jul 23 2007

       but think of the layers of comedic value that would be lost. Example:   

       person 1 says something with subtle wit
person 2 pretends to miss the humour in remark and amplifies the wit of person 1 by agreeing to an absurd notion
person 3 doesn't get the joke and fires off an outraged, poorly thought-out and poorly spelt post.
xaviergisz, Jul 24 2007

       Back in the seventies I worked for a printing company run by a Jewish Republican. A guy came in wanting a bumper sticker printed up that said, “McGovern is one thousand percent behind Israel.” He wouldn’t take the job until I explained the joke. (Even though I figured, if you had to explain it to people, it wouldn't work.)
ldischler, Jul 24 2007

       You could just put comments in the html. <!-- humor -->You big idiot!<!-- /humor -->
Galbinus_Caeli, Jul 26 2007

       Sarcasm gets a full tag? Did I say that? If I did, I am just going to have to pull an Alberto on the fact.
Galbinus_Caeli, Jul 26 2007

       ... rather than having to write span.humour { color: red; }, a savings of five letters!
jutta, Jul 26 2007


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle