Dave Winer, Tim Bray, Robert Scoble and a host of others have been writing negatively about the AutoLink feature in the beta Google Toolbar. The consensus on their side seems to be that AutoLink is evil. I disagree (and wonder if some commenters are just bored and need something to talk about), and after showing you how it works, I’ll tell you why.

How It Works

Once you’ve installed the beta Google Toolbar (IE only, so I’ll never really use it myself), you will see the AutoLink button:

Start surfing the web. If you come across a page that has a recognizable piece of information that is not already linked somewhere, the toolbar icon will change so that you can find these auto-links. Recognizable information includes what Google interprets as a street address, an ISBN number, and a Fed Ex or USPS tracking number… each of which will be autolinked to the usually appropriate Google Map (or Yahoo or MapQuest map), Amazon page, or package tracking information.

Here’s what the button looks like when it has found some information which I have selected to see:

Now, if I choose to reveal the autolinks with the button, then the text on the page will become linked. Here is a snippet from a page before I clicked the AutoLink button:

And here it is after clicking the AutoLink button:

In this case you are seeing links to a Google Map. I had to surf around a while to find an ISBN number that wasn’t linked somewhere already, but here is the before:

and after:

In both cases you can see that the cursor changes to an AutoLink cursor when I hover over the link.

Why It’s Not Evil

This is a very cool feature (though even in my short browsing period it created a number of false links, interpreting the text in a sentence that included the word “miss.” as Mississippi, for instance) in those times when I need it.
AutoLink isn’t evil because:

• It doesn’t do anything to a page’s content unless you ask it to. AutoLink doesn’t deface Tim Bray’s pages, it adds more information if I ask it to and ONLY if I ask it to.

• It doesn’t overwrite existing links. If Dave Winer chooses to link an ISBN number or address, AutoLink respects that link and doesn’t change it. That would be evil. If Dave doesn’t choose to link that information– but he has given it to me to use– then why shouldn’t I be able to let a tool link it for me?

• It doesn’t do anything that other tools don’t already do and that aren’t taking advantage of a fundamentally good thing about the web. AutoLink isn’t dissimilar to other browser plugins that provide convenient links and images… for instance, I have a plugin that puts a little envelope icon next to email links so I can distinguish them from page links, and another that adds screenshots of web sites and book covers to information when browsing del.icio.us. There are all kinds of proxies people can use to modify content on the fly for their convenience. That’s one of the beautiful things about web publishing– it isn’t about pixel-perfect rendering of information in a single form, but about client-centered dissemination. Be it a web proxy or an RSS reader, a user style sheet or a plugin, it’s about shaping the information to my needs.

• There’s nothing wrong with a plug-in that utilizes the plug-in provider’s resources. We expect, when we type in the Google Toolbar search box, to get results from the Google Engine. Why is it any different to retrieve address results from Google Maps? You can even select a competitor’s mapping product… a feature they aren’t obligated to include in the Google toolbar. How many other toolbars let you select to use them to access competitor’s resources?

• The slippery slope argument is a theory about predicting future consequence, not an unintended reality. Tools to manipulate web page content have been around for a long time and we haven’t lost all control (or even any significant control) over our words and ideas– Google Toolbar seems unlikely to be the application that puts the proposition over the edge. The Slippery Slope is most often invoked when the person complaining can’t come up with a current definition of a problem.

Dave Winer has come out as supporting the idea that it would be OK if AutoLink just provided a drop-down box with the links instead of creating links on the page. The problem with this is that I need to see the context of the link to know which I am following. Having a drop down that lets me jump to three different addresses is no use unless (as the toolbar button does) it visually indicates on the page which piece of information is being utilized. This is even more critical with the other kinds of information which have no semantic content on their own. And it seems a bit schizophrenic to be OK with providing the links, just not in a convenient fashion. If Dave didn’t care enough to provide the link, why should he care if something (or someone) else does?

How It Can Be Improved

This isn’t to say that AutoLink is perfect. Some ways it could be improved:

• visually format auto-links in a such a way that they are clearly distinguishable from links created by the page author.

• provide options for all content types, including user defined functions (similar to those that can be used to create URL shortcuts in Mozilla and Firefox). That would make it easy to accommodate new information resources. Or, better yet, take the user to a Google-originated meta page tht provides them with all of their options.

Those, like Danny Sullivan, who wish to privilege the almighty publisher as the only authority who can manipulate the text you see in your browser have completely missed the boat. That’s old media, “user experience be damned, I’m the publisher and I know what’s best,” and that ship sailed a long time ago. If you don’t want users to be able to adjust their experience, then you shouldn’t be publishing on the web, or in any other volatile medium. Danny, like other publishers, gave that control up when they decided to take advantage of the economies of scale, ubiquity, and economics of the Internet. If– and I’m a publisher too– I have to choose who gets to have their cake and eat it too, it should be the consumer. The providers have had it only their way (or the doorway) for far too long. And it’s for that reason I have such a hard time understanding Dave Winer’s concern as he is, even when he irritates me, usually squarely on the side of empowering the user.