The `First' and `Last' links in the Links Bar should be removed. Only a tiny minority of Web pages have related `First' and `Last' pages which would be useful to navigate to. Of those few pages, for a considerable proportion of them `Up' and `First' would do exactly the same thing. (The obvious example is LaTeX2HTML-processed documents where the table of contents has a previous/next relationship with the first page of the first chapter.)
ccing the usual suspects
One goal of implementing a LINK UI is to promote LINK usage. Only a tiny minority of Web pages use LINK at all. We can't base much on the few sites that use it, especially when no mainstream browser has yet to provide a UI and therefore almost no page authors even know LINK exists or what it's for. This is compounded by the overly vague description of LINK types provided by the W3C. Make the assumption that given a UI containing First and Last, authors will use them. Then change the debate to whether First and Last links are useful enough to warrant being in the UI in the first place. I'm on the fence about leaving them out. I think they're only marginally useful. Removing them would save space and simplify the UI.
I know a place they work; Bugzilla; and they work great for bugzilla which uses them.. I'd say leave them in.. the arguement is really a chicken and egg problem.
I can think of about a hundreds of times I could of used this kinda functionality if it was available to the user. There are many, many, multiple page articles that get written for product reviews/previews/editorials on major websites like www.anandtech.com, www.extremetech.com, www.firingsquad.com; I could go on with a list of all the hardware sites out there. If they used these first/last and table of contents, which many have functionality built into their articles now.. having GUI for is nice to navigate articles. I hate sometimes I have to find the links or the Table of contents bar to get to the page I want to look at. If I click a GUI feature I know where I can get to that information everytime. Its very helpful, again to say that it should be removed is a bad idea, if you dont give people functionality it wont be used, hense the chicken and egg problem, and someone has to start, Mozilla Did that!
and to say to get rid of them is saying we'd like to give the users a half ass version of full functionality because we dont think you use it often enough, when no one article/webmaster knows that these features exist and may use them in the future, really doesn't make sense at all.
for a program, I know many people haven't heard of, I think they should update it, how about that? drop 100% support for web users because 1 program conflicts for ~0.5% of users? [dont know what kinda of numbers you are talking about, taking a wild guess] where are these pages being used and for what content exactly? So the have an algorithm that conflicts with webstandards, like that hasn't been done before.
> One goal of implementing a LINK UI is to promote LINK usage. Absolutely. So it's important that we give prominent access only to the LINKs which are most likely to be useful, and not a `Last' link for which the only relevant destination will usually be <http://home.att.net/~cecw/lastpage.htm>. > We can't base much on the few sites that use it ... Oh, I'm not. :-) I'm basing it on the Web as a whole, where a minority of Web pages are part of a sequence. For those that are, `Last' is hardly useful at all, and `First' is often the same as `Up' (as it is on extremetech.com and cnet.com, for example). `Site Home', `Up', `Previous', and `Next' need to be prominent, but `First' and `Last' do not. If email@example.com makes a coherent comment, I'll respond to it.
Matt, if you look at the articles written, many have a Last Page (conclusion or whatever). Last can be useful here. As I frequently go the lastpage of article first. Many of those conclusion pages go back to the index pages (or TOC type) . Some conclusion pages go back to the first page. Up which would be like going back one page in an article (not the back button, which maybe pulls from the cache and not reload like the Previous button, I still cant your reasoning here for removing last. Hardware and features drive software content. If you build it, they will come! Up would be used differently, so its either to (_top) so we should use it if the _top element? I do see the need to provide functionality that will be used consistently across the web for a UI just like navigator buttons like forward and back is used in the browser itself. If that is your goal here, I fail to see what would you do to replace it, or make it better than by just saying taking it out. www.extremetech.com 'last' would use the last article page. So 'first' should use the first article page.. and 'up'/'down' should be to the top/bottom of the page, respectively. Again, I think it makes perfect sense. Just because you dont like to go to the last page and read it first dont mean other people wont.
remember, the content that is used for first, last and Up, has a url for whatever page the website author wants to add to it and would most likely be based off the TOC population of the article, not just some arbitrary page that the links bar make up on its own.
so you are looking at this removal like a media player or web browser buttons which neither have front, first, or last, end buttons.. just play/reload and stop/stop, prev/back and next/forward.. hmm. interesting.. but that doesn't help for long lists in the case of bugzilla, 10+ page articles.. where many articles I've come across I have to link thru each one because they dont have a TOC or last page link, some times we need this functionality before we go insane from having to load so many pages on a slow dialup connection. Last would really help here.
mpt, thanks for clarifying. As cuz wrote, hardware review articles is a good example of using a Last link. I often skip to the last page, which is usually the Conclusion where they summarize the results of a benchmark, of give their rating on a product, etc.. Most other news articles are written in inverted pyramid style: tell the story briefly, retell the story in more depth, retell it yet again in more depth, end. I'm doubt that given this predominant style, there's much reason to skip to the last page, which might not make sense without the context of the previous pages. Moving on to a PowerPointish slideshow presentation, First is useful to "restart" the presentation. I don't know how often people "skip to the end". I understand what your saying about "Up" being used to go to the beginning, mpt, but I don't think it corresponds well to the user's mental model or prior experience with similar navigation widgets. IOW, if I want to go to the beginning of a series, "Up" isn't the navigation direction that comes to mind , more like First, Start, or Beginning. I'm not convinced that we should recommend that authors use Up as a synonym for First. There's also a nice symetry to a compound widget that goes: "<< < > >>" for navigating along a series of pages. In threaded discussions, with a page per comment, Last would be useful to skip to the most recent comment (assuming forward chronological ordering of comments). This can be generalized to any series of pages that follow a chronological ordering. There may even be enough examples of this to offset the use cases where First makes sense, but Last doesn't. That said, Previous/Next is still an order of magnitude more useful than First/Last. I'm leaning towards keeping First/Last, but I concede that it doesn't ruin the toolbar to take them out.  actually, the more I think about it, I wonder if "Up" is an appropriate label. Programmers are used to visualizing hierarchical structures. Most everyone else isn't. What does "Up" convey to the average person? Sorry, rhetorical question, since this is out of scope for this bug ;)
Just to chime in here: I think we should leave them in. Several uses for them have already been proposed. It's not like we are strapped for space. Gerv
I vote for keeping them in too. please resolve this as a wontfix
here is what I wanna highlight here from Tim from bug 103436: Top: is mostly for "Site homepage or topmost page" - change of link name would be useful. Up: up one directory or menu level (used in ftp here is good) "One level up from this page"
I have ideas in mind that could use these things to a degree that is way beyond what you see for its usage today.
or possibly add 'site home' and leave in top, again discussion for Top we'll leave for bug 103436.
Tim, I notice you say powerpoint, I've seen these on the web too. Intel frequently uses powerpoint slides with buttons to move prev/forward and next/back, first and last in their browsing pages for this... Another thing that comes to mind is www.firingsquad.com uses previous and next for viewing the images in seperate browser window that are related to the articles they write. I've seen this on other similar sites. -so there is definetely a need for these. Now if Mozilla doesn't provide a solution, people start making their own, inventing new ways to do things that cannot be done say with a UI. I'm saying basically saying that clearly websites have expressed their need for such UI and because no one has provided that, they have had to produce their own solutions. Which then usually leads to a major co.. to create that product for end-users. Its called innovation.
Hm, I've used [first] and [last] to refer to the first and last pages of a hierarchical level, up to refer to the first page of the next level above, and next to refer to the next absolute page (not just in a section). So given a document with 3.2.1-3.2.8, from 3.2.6, to get to 3.2.7, one clicks next, to get to 3.2.8, one clicks last, to get to 3.2, one clicks up, to get to 3.2.1, one clicks first. To get to 3.3 from 3.2.8, one clicks next; last is disabled on 3.2.8. On a purely linear document (p. 1, p. 2, etc.), there should be no [up]. I take it this was not the intended use of [last]?
In section 4e of : http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ejw/authoring/draft-ietf-html-relrev-00.txt Given a set of documents, it is possible and often desirable to specify linear sequences to navigate through the set. A book, for example, is often organized as a linear sequence. With sequence links in each document, a user agent can step through or gather an entire book programmatically. And it goes on to describe behavior for first previous next last. Although this draft expired in 1996, there has not been any replacement for it and "it is still of interest to this [IETF WebDAV] working group." We have many, many features in Mozilla that are only supported by a small minority of websites (P3P, XSLT, ...). 'Lack of use' is not a valid reason to remove 'First' and 'Last', especially since almost zero websites use <link> for navigation. The comments above demonstrate several possible uses for 'First' and 'Last'. I see no reason not to mark this WONTFIX. Any further comments mpt?
one more vote for wontfix (sorry it's late, I thought I'd already commented but apparently not). "up" and "top" have an entirely different role than "first". I frequently write pages that page through a list of items (similarly to bugzilla buglists). "up" goes to the parent page (outside of the list entirely). "top" goes to the site homepage. "first", "last", "next" and "previous" all refer to the sequence of pages in the list. I know of many, many sites written by my company that use this method, dating back over two years (and only one of them at this point uses <link>). But every single one of them has "first" and "last" as well as "next" and "previous".
um, Gerv, you might want to check which account you are logged in as.
Actually, 'first' and 'last' are not defined in HTML4.1. There is only a 'start'. But I don't mind if these are just some Mozilla extensions. They are useful. But what is the semantic difference between first and start??? Anyway, first and last are invaluable for e.g. novels, which are a linear sequence of pages. There is a first and a past page. The up, top, index etc. are used for some toplevel page or index. I have made such site and have used almost all the keywords w3c defined (even chapter, glossary, etc.). And it works very well in Moz.