It was fitting that Desmond turned out to be the main purveyor of this knowledge, since he was the first to resolve his internal conflict and be reunited with his true love (his phone call to Penny in the fourth season will always be the most thrilling moment of the entire series in my mind). But was it fitting that Desmond removed the – for lack of a better word – “plug stone,” causing Jack to replace it in order to save the island from nonexistent destruction? That seemed quite superfluous to me. The light was on, then it was off, then it came back on, and it never mattered to begin with. OK.

Also fitting was the absence of Michael amongst the other major players in the series finale, since he did not resolve his fatherhood conflict before he “died.” But it would have been nice – though impossible – to see Michael’s son Walt there – certainly more so than the repugnant Shannon. And fitting, too, that Ben did not join the rest of the cast in the church, since he had only ever caused them pain (and received the same in return). I found myself once again exclaiming “Leave him to die!” when, after being trapped by a tree during an earthquake, the other characters tried to save Ben. What did he ever do to deserve that?

I felt better about the show’s treatment of Locke after the finale. He was my favorite character throughout the show, and I didn’t think it fair when they killed him off and then made him evil incarnate for the final season. But in the end, he as a symbol of faith versus Jack as a symbol of science reigned, proving that the island’s “good versus evil,” “Jacob versus the Man In Black” dichotomy was only a distraction for Jack.

You can view the “nothing matters except our love for each other” theme as a cop-out, since it allowed the writers and producers to leave so many questions unanswered, but to me it was a bit of tidy proof that even though they did not have the entire show scripted from the very beginning, they knew why the survivors were REALLY on the island, and how it would end.

And so I retract my threat to drive to the homes of the producers and shoot out the porch lights if they didn’t explain what the numbers mean. I only hope that I can now forget them.

This is a problem semantically, as well as for the accessibility of the page. When we look at the page, we know that the social media icons all grouped together form a section of the page. We can tell that because the icons all look similar and are placed together. But someone who cannot see our page, but instead has it read aloud to them, would have no way of knowing that. They would just suddenly hear “Link to http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ann-Arbor-MI/University-of-Michigan-School-of-Public-Health/13345778541?ref=mf title Find UM SPH on Facebook.” While this may not seem like such a bad thing, it goes against the whole idea of pages needing to be machine-readable in addition to being well-designed aesthetically.

To resolve this I placed the missing headings in the code (Navigation, SPH feature, SPH in Social Media, and Hot Topics) and used CSS to hide their display. I’ve tried this before and had the same thing happen: someone calls me or emails me to say they see the headings on the page and it “looks funny.”

I used the following CSS to hide these headings:

visibility:hidden;
display:none;
position:absolute;
top:-900px;
left:-900px;

One would think that this would work, but it didn’t. The headings weren’t visible to me in any browser, but two important stake holders emailed me to say they could see them.  So I ended up commenting them out. This is certainly far less than ideal. I am stumped.

Follow writer and photographer Bob Fox on his Prairie Schooner journey