There's seems to be some disagreement and debate here about what is "less distracting" between superscripts (followed by footnotes) and links. To me this seems obvious since one adds text to the sentence (literally a number) and the other has only an underline to signify its presence. However, it just occurred to me that this is not what this debate is about.
The distraction in this context is not defined by the presence or absence of text, it's the perceived value of the content there. I think historically footnotes have been of lower value to the reader than links. Take wikipedia as an example: for info that is absolutely necessary to understand the article there is a link, and for further reading or references there is a footnote. Maybe we have been conditioned to think links are necessary reading because of their historical use, and that's why one camp sees them as "more distracting."
I think historically footnotes have been of lower value to the reader than links
I must have OCFD (obsessive-compulsive footnote disorder). I feel compelled to read every footnote.
Years ago I read the first ~100 pages of The Sound and the Fury, then stopped. It still bugs me that I never finished it. Unread footnotes are like that.
The distraction in this context is not defined by the presence or absence of text, it's the perceived value of the content there. I think historically footnotes have been of lower value to the reader than links. Take wikipedia as an example: for info that is absolutely necessary to understand the article there is a link, and for further reading or references there is a footnote. Maybe we have been conditioned to think links are necessary reading because of their historical use, and that's why one camp sees them as "more distracting."