I've said it before and I've said it again: links from this website should be considered spam. Many of the things that were claimed in this article are just plainly wrong. When it comes to these type of decisions you need to back your claims up with research.
Completely agree. I appreciate the desire to improve things, but they never go beyond speculation and personal preference.
Do you have research references to back up your claims in this article, Anthony?
I'd be very cautious on doing this without proof too!
I feel like every week there's an article on DN telling us that we shouldn't use a well established and validated pattern. These mainly feel like clickbait headlines because they're shocking and use loss aversion to make us fear we're missing something.
Not cooool, as others have said this article has little substance or validity.