As another example of the trend in annotated news, there are many things to like about this example, and some notable drawbacks as well. Pros: More interactive than NYTimes' previous annotation efforts, nudges reader use of layered commentary, content of annotation layer encourages perspective-taking and reminds reader that political is personal (and vice versa). I also think it's interesting that interview processes and outcomes become the content of the annotation layer. Cons: Confusing how annotations (i.e. refugee contributions via interview) are related to specific anchor text, the "Notes" are static (no ability for reader response, no links out to related information), and annotation "Notes" don't have tags (limiting association with other documents and annotated content). That's my rough assessment of an important step forward.

The NYTimes' in-house annotation efforts are iterating rather quickly - this approach is more interactive than what was publishing a week ago, yet still isn't participatory or open. I'm eager to see how their efforts continue to grow, whether or not they'll jump to a third party platform, and if they'll discuss their process publicly.

To learn about these refugees - who they are, where they have come from, etc. - the reader must click on highlighted anchor text and read the annotation. The UX makes interaction with the annotation layer an essential quality of the reader's experience.

The numbering convention is similar to footnotes, and reminds me of commentary about similarities among annotation, hyperlinks, and footnotes.

Test annotating the new NYTimes dynamic "note."

I'm curious about the relationship between interviewing and annotating. Su "asked refugees... for their responses," with answers then anchored to specific parts of the EO. What's the process linking new content (refugee responses) to the anchor text?