I was just thinking about Gregory's article and Neilsen's ugly webpages, and wondering why what has been appropriate for print is not appropriate for the web, and I think it's about audience. I don't think anyone has ever enjoyed reading long, wordy paragraphs with no section breaks or headers, but I think that print traditionally has had a smaller audience that has endured these painful things because they thought they had no choice. Enter the web, and a much wider audience, many of whom may read very little in the way of books or articles that are not for entertainment purposes (however difficult that may be to imagine, there are more people out there like this than there are of us). These people do not have the tolerance for wordiness and find the ordinarily accepted style of nonfiction writing soporific--it results in the MEGO effect (My Eyes Glaze Over). In writing you must accomodate the lowest common denominator (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way), so we must now take into account not just the understanding of our college-educated audience who reads crap because that's what they're used to, but to the masses who want their information written well, with concision and clarity.
It's interesting that it is for writing to a broader audience that we must hone our writing skills more than to our usual select audience. As most of us have learned, it is usually easier to write a longer paper than to say the same thing in just 1 or 2 pages.
Just a late thought I thought I'd put out there.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
NIU & Music Piracy
Hello, all!
Related to our discussion last week, I heard on NPR today that 400 some students at 18 or so colleges around the country are going to be sued for pirating music. That is, if they don't take the plea deal being offered to them. Guess one of the colleges...yup, some NIU student is in trouble for illegally downloading music. I attempted to find a link to an article, but wasn't able to yet. Kind of freaky considering our presentation. What do you think?
Related to our discussion last week, I heard on NPR today that 400 some students at 18 or so colleges around the country are going to be sued for pirating music. That is, if they don't take the plea deal being offered to them. Guess one of the colleges...yup, some NIU student is in trouble for illegally downloading music. I attempted to find a link to an article, but wasn't able to yet. Kind of freaky considering our presentation. What do you think?
Writing for the Web vs Print: Think of the User
Reading these articles made me have flashbacks to working for the American Dental Assn and going through the major redesign process back in 2002ish (nightmare -- so many departments to accommodate) and then flashback even farther to 1999 and working as an assitant editor for the American Med Assn Web site (we were still trying to figure out what this Internet business was all about -- but they had a site).
I think Gregory's statement about the writer should "be guided by their audience's needs and their communicative purpose" is a good rule to follow. I used to hear constantly at one place -- design the page so the main content is "above the fold" of the screen then people will be more inclined to read, ie, write fewer words, be more concise. Also, put the info in manageable chunks -- white space is good, no lengthy paragraphs like in print medium.
But, ultimately, it all depends on the users and in corporate context depending on company and purpose. For consumers, yes, writing shorter passages might be best -- keeps the reader focused and doesn't overwhelm them with too much info on a page. Yet, if you go to a medical journal Web site to access a peer-reviewed journal, the expectation of the reader (primarily healthcare providers) is to read a lengthy text with possibly long paragraphs online and scroll down (still you do try to break the paragraphs up some even the hated 1 sentence paragraph was promoted). Sure, sites have designed in various ways to make navigation more accommodating, but it depends on the needs of the user. The writing for Web then depends on the purpose and users -- same as in print.
When I sat behind a 2-way mirror at a focus group to watch users try to navigate through a site, following various tasks, it once again became clear that writing for the Web and writing in print has a similar goal -- consider the audience and the purpose.
The medium does need to be considered but in respect to writing, many of the same rules do apply.
I think Gregory's statement about the writer should "be guided by their audience's needs and their communicative purpose" is a good rule to follow. I used to hear constantly at one place -- design the page so the main content is "above the fold" of the screen then people will be more inclined to read, ie, write fewer words, be more concise. Also, put the info in manageable chunks -- white space is good, no lengthy paragraphs like in print medium.
But, ultimately, it all depends on the users and in corporate context depending on company and purpose. For consumers, yes, writing shorter passages might be best -- keeps the reader focused and doesn't overwhelm them with too much info on a page. Yet, if you go to a medical journal Web site to access a peer-reviewed journal, the expectation of the reader (primarily healthcare providers) is to read a lengthy text with possibly long paragraphs online and scroll down (still you do try to break the paragraphs up some even the hated 1 sentence paragraph was promoted). Sure, sites have designed in various ways to make navigation more accommodating, but it depends on the needs of the user. The writing for Web then depends on the purpose and users -- same as in print.
When I sat behind a 2-way mirror at a focus group to watch users try to navigate through a site, following various tasks, it once again became clear that writing for the Web and writing in print has a similar goal -- consider the audience and the purpose.
The medium does need to be considered but in respect to writing, many of the same rules do apply.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Miscellaneous thoughts
Nothing from this week's readings jumped out as controversial, nor did I feel my normal "technology is the enemy" attitude welling up inside. Yet somehow, I have managed a few thoughts on both readings.
I was a bit disappointed with the Gregory article. I was hoping that more attention would be given to e-literature (short stories, novellas, etc.). Instead I felt the "guidelines" applied only to those "traditional" texts that naturally lent themselves to publishing on the web (i.e. pamphlets, brochures, marketing materials, etc.). I'm confident that if I read these guidelines to my 8th graders, at least half of them would give me a resounding "Duh" or "No kidding."
The Nielsen article made me wonder about the chicken or the egg. Do "Web pages have to employ scannable text" because people scan web sites, or do people scan web texts because they (for the most part) have always been scannable? The Internet thrives in no small part because it provides quick access to a world of information, and I would imagine that the first creators of websites considered this strongly as they developed site structure. Getting to a site in one second and then needing one hour to get your information doesn't make much sense. Did we need a study to prove this?
See you tomorrow,
Jake
I was a bit disappointed with the Gregory article. I was hoping that more attention would be given to e-literature (short stories, novellas, etc.). Instead I felt the "guidelines" applied only to those "traditional" texts that naturally lent themselves to publishing on the web (i.e. pamphlets, brochures, marketing materials, etc.). I'm confident that if I read these guidelines to my 8th graders, at least half of them would give me a resounding "Duh" or "No kidding."
The Nielsen article made me wonder about the chicken or the egg. Do "Web pages have to employ scannable text" because people scan web sites, or do people scan web texts because they (for the most part) have always been scannable? The Internet thrives in no small part because it provides quick access to a world of information, and I would imagine that the first creators of websites considered this strongly as they developed site structure. Getting to a site in one second and then needing one hour to get your information doesn't make much sense. Did we need a study to prove this?
See you tomorrow,
Jake
Monday, February 26, 2007
Can you scan this?
In fact, you won't need to! (It'll be short). The Morkes and Nielsen article fits well with my web-reading practices, at least tonight. I jumped right to their short summary, but then I went back to the full article out of guilt. While reading the full article, however, I read mostly topic sentences, and scanned the rest! (How easily I'm persuaded by test results!) I did, however, bookmark the page for when I have "more time."
My biggest dissapointment, unlike some of our other posters, is that while I've been to Nebraska dozens of times, I've not been to one of its top six destinations! My mom, born and raised in NE, hasn't either! The good news is that I called her about this, and we now have a plan!
My biggest dissapointment, unlike some of our other posters, is that while I've been to Nebraska dozens of times, I've not been to one of its top six destinations! My mom, born and raised in NE, hasn't either! The good news is that I called her about this, and we now have a plan!
Creative user interfaces
I’m not sure how pertinent to our discussion this is—but it is undeniably the coolest navigational scheme I’ve ever seen or dreamed of. Etsy is kind of an online craft store where people can buy and sell things to each other; on the surface it sounds a lot like eBay, I suppose. But this site is all crafted around the user experience and is very community oriented—I actually kind felt like I was spying as I skimmed their forum boards.
The home page may look much like any other e-commerce site at first glance, but take a look at the options at the top of the left-hand menu column, and try the one called “Colors.” There is a help button if you can’t figure it out, but I found it to be quite user friendly, and brilliantly executed (it worked flawlessly on my dial-up connection at home)—not to mention that it’s fun to play with. I’m not sure of its ultimate practicality without a few more filter options (such as, only bring up jewelry, or accent furniture, etc.), but I think that with the creative community they’ve so carefully fostered, they’ve found a way to cater to their specific audience in an elegant and user friendly way. (There are 2 other alternate navigational paths, Time Machine & Time Machine 2, but I couldn't use them from my slow connection. I have little doubt that they are equally cool.)
In such a user-focused environment, I did find it rather jarring to see this in their FAQ section:
"Can I use HTML formatting in my Bio?
We do not allow any user-created HTML formatting anywhere on the site. We have designed Etsy to provide a consistent visual experience and this would interrupt that."
Interesting… and I bet people who are becoming more used to the Web 2.0 experience of customizing their spaces (like MySpace.com) were a bit frustrated with that bit. Other than this bit, which reflects, I’m sure, the frustration of designers trying to cope with Web 2.0, I think this site’s innovative approach should be an inspiration to us as web experience designers to think outside the box and try to give our users another way of accessing our information. (Sorry about the cliché!)
Information explosion
There is plenty to read on the Web. There's also plenty of detail on the Web. An article on the Chicago Tribune's website http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702260082feb26,1,1134512.column?page=2&coll=chi-news-hed has plenty of detail on the story in 2 pages. Also, the use of links in text leads the reader in a lot of places (s)he might want to go. If you want to know how to do it yourself, there's plenty of help. A Google search yielded, among others, www.webreference.com/content/writing/ and www.alistapart.com/articles/writeliving/. Of course, if you want to know what not to do, go to www.webpagesthatsuck.com and check out some of the 10 worst sites. All bad design, but some bad writing, too.
Dumbing Down of America II
After I posted my comments, I returned to my e-mail. I had received from Prof. Knapp a copy of an article on nationwide high school test results.
Many of you received the article, but for those of you who didn't, I'm posting a few paragraphs. As I stated, there are a number of factors contributing to America's lack of understanding of complex issues. Here's another factor in the complexity of this issue itself:
New York Times --February 23, 2007Grades Rise, but Reading Skills Do Not
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22
High school students nationwide are taking seeminglytougher courses and earning better grades, but their reading skills arenot improving through the effort, according to two federal reports released here Thursday that cite grade inflation as a possible explanation.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, an exam commonly known as the nation's report card, found that the reading skills of 12th graders tested in 2005 were significantly worse than those of students in 1992, when a comparable test was first given, and essentially flat since students previously took the exam in 2002.
At the same time, however, grade-point averages have risen nationwide, according to a separate survey by the National Assessment, of the transcripts of 26,000 students, which compared them with a study ofstudents coursework in 1990.
Theres a disconnect between what we want and expect our 12th graders toknow and do, and what our schools are actually delivering throughinstruction in the classroom, David W. Gordon, the superintendent ofschools in Sacramento, said at a news conference announcing the results.
The reports offered several rationales for the disparity between rising grade-point averages and tougher coursework on the one hand and stagnant reading scores on the other, including grade inflation, changes in grading standards or the possibility that student grades were being increasingly affected by things like classroom participation or extra assignments.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is considered theyardstick for academic performance because it is the only test taken allacross the country. The test of 12th-grade achievement was given to a representative sample of 21,000 high school seniors attending 900 public and private schools from January to March 2005.
It showed that the share of 12th-grade students lacking even basic high school reading skills meaning they could not, for example, extract data about train fares at different times of day from a brochure rose to 27 percent from 20 percent in 1992.
Many of you received the article, but for those of you who didn't, I'm posting a few paragraphs. As I stated, there are a number of factors contributing to America's lack of understanding of complex issues. Here's another factor in the complexity of this issue itself:
New York Times --February 23, 2007Grades Rise, but Reading Skills Do Not
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22
High school students nationwide are taking seeminglytougher courses and earning better grades, but their reading skills arenot improving through the effort, according to two federal reports released here Thursday that cite grade inflation as a possible explanation.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, an exam commonly known as the nation's report card, found that the reading skills of 12th graders tested in 2005 were significantly worse than those of students in 1992, when a comparable test was first given, and essentially flat since students previously took the exam in 2002.
At the same time, however, grade-point averages have risen nationwide, according to a separate survey by the National Assessment, of the transcripts of 26,000 students, which compared them with a study ofstudents coursework in 1990.
Theres a disconnect between what we want and expect our 12th graders toknow and do, and what our schools are actually delivering throughinstruction in the classroom, David W. Gordon, the superintendent ofschools in Sacramento, said at a news conference announcing the results.
The reports offered several rationales for the disparity between rising grade-point averages and tougher coursework on the one hand and stagnant reading scores on the other, including grade inflation, changes in grading standards or the possibility that student grades were being increasingly affected by things like classroom participation or extra assignments.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is considered theyardstick for academic performance because it is the only test taken allacross the country. The test of 12th-grade achievement was given to a representative sample of 21,000 high school seniors attending 900 public and private schools from January to March 2005.
It showed that the share of 12th-grade students lacking even basic high school reading skills meaning they could not, for example, extract data about train fares at different times of day from a brochure rose to 27 percent from 20 percent in 1992.
Dumbing Down of America II
After I posted my comments, I returned to my e-mail. I had received from Prof. Knapp a copy of an article on nationwide high school test results.
Many of you received the article, but for those of you who didn't, I'm posting a few paragraphs. As I stated, there are a number of factors contributing to America's lack of understanding of complex issues. Here's another factor in the complexity of this issue itself:
New York Times --February 23, 2007Grades Rise, but Reading Skills Do Not
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22
High school students nationwide are taking seeminglytougher courses and earning better grades, but their reading skills arenot improving through the effort, according to two federal reports released here Thursday that cite grade inflation as a possible explanation.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, an exam commonly known as the nation's report card, found that the reading skills of 12th graders tested in 2005 were significantly worse than those of students in 1992, when a comparable test was first given, and essentially flat since students previously took the exam in 2002.
At the same time, however, grade-point averages have risen nationwide, according to a separate survey by the National Assessment, of the transcripts of 26,000 students, which compared them with a study ofstudents coursework in 1990.
Theres a disconnect between what we want and expect our 12th graders toknow and do, and what our schools are actually delivering throughinstruction in the classroom, David W. Gordon, the superintendent ofschools in Sacramento, said at a news conference announcing the results.
The reports offered several rationales for the disparity between rising grade-point averages and tougher coursework on the one hand and stagnant reading scores on the other, including grade inflation, changes in grading standards or the possibility that student grades were being increasingly affected by things like classroom participation or extra assignments.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is considered theyardstick for academic performance because it is the only test taken allacross the country. The test of 12th-grade achievement was given to a representative sample of 21,000 high school seniors attending 900 public and private schools from January to March 2005.
It showed that the share of 12th-grade students lacking even basic high school reading skills meaning they could not, for example, extract data about train fares at different times of day from a brochure rose to 27 percent from 20 percent in 1992.
Many of you received the article, but for those of you who didn't, I'm posting a few paragraphs. As I stated, there are a number of factors contributing to America's lack of understanding of complex issues. Here's another factor in the complexity of this issue itself:
New York Times --February 23, 2007Grades Rise, but Reading Skills Do Not
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22
High school students nationwide are taking seeminglytougher courses and earning better grades, but their reading skills arenot improving through the effort, according to two federal reports released here Thursday that cite grade inflation as a possible explanation.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, an exam commonly known as the nation's report card, found that the reading skills of 12th graders tested in 2005 were significantly worse than those of students in 1992, when a comparable test was first given, and essentially flat since students previously took the exam in 2002.
At the same time, however, grade-point averages have risen nationwide, according to a separate survey by the National Assessment, of the transcripts of 26,000 students, which compared them with a study ofstudents coursework in 1990.
Theres a disconnect between what we want and expect our 12th graders toknow and do, and what our schools are actually delivering throughinstruction in the classroom, David W. Gordon, the superintendent ofschools in Sacramento, said at a news conference announcing the results.
The reports offered several rationales for the disparity between rising grade-point averages and tougher coursework on the one hand and stagnant reading scores on the other, including grade inflation, changes in grading standards or the possibility that student grades were being increasingly affected by things like classroom participation or extra assignments.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is considered theyardstick for academic performance because it is the only test taken allacross the country. The test of 12th-grade achievement was given to a representative sample of 21,000 high school seniors attending 900 public and private schools from January to March 2005.
It showed that the share of 12th-grade students lacking even basic high school reading skills meaning they could not, for example, extract data about train fares at different times of day from a brochure rose to 27 percent from 20 percent in 1992.
The Dumbing Down of America
I found the Morkes and Nielsen article both interesting and a little frightening.
One of the negative effects of the Web (and USA Today before it) is the decreased understanding of complex issues. Ironically and sadly, as the world becomes more complex, the willingness to consider issues in depth and gather sufficient background to make informed decisions has reached an all-time-low threshold. Life is more complex than ever. The Internet has connected the world in ways that were unimaginable before its invention, which requires a greater understanding of the cultures we are now allowed to directly interact with. The technologies we use are complex beyond belief, and due to corporate greed, are "upgraded" with an unnecessary rapidity that is impossible to keep up with in terms of finances, much less comprehension.
Supposedly, we have more information available than ever before. But the quality and depth of that information have decreased dramatically. I was a journalism student when USA Today launched, and we discussed the fear that, in the effort to compete, newspapers would present shorter and shorter articles with less background and less analysis. That fear has definitely come to fruition. Information on the Web is even worse. Sure, it's possible to find basic, low-level information on almost anything instantly, which is great if one wants to, for example, look up an unfamiliar name used on a news report. But it is so difficult to find anything that provides any kind of in-depth information on anything that I forbid my writing students to use Web pages in papers. The "mile-wide-and-inch-deep" nature of Internet information does not provide a true understanding of much of anything.
Of course, this problem is as complex as any other, and it's wrong to attribute it to Web and newspaper design. Part of the problem is the one I have constantly been harping on: technology has provided an avenue for people to be in constant contact with people placing conflicting demands on their time and energy, so no one really has time to consider anything in depth, anyway. Which came first: the need for down-and-dirty information created by increasing demands on and decreasing patience by readers or the technology and layouts that permit it? It's impossible to say, but it has become a situation that feeds on itself. The result is a downward spiral in the understanding of the complexity of the world around us as the world becomes more complex.
Meanwhile, those who have a vested interest in the public NOT thinking and reacting in knee-jerk fashion -- politicians, corporations, employers, etc. -- are laughing with glee. The less we understand the complexitities of situations, the less we think critically, the easier it is for them to convince us that we should vote for them by relying on meaningless catch-phrases, the easier it is for them to convince us that we need products to solve "problems" that don't exist (do we NEED a new Windows operating system? Are the little hair follicle bumps under our arms such a problem that we need a deodorant that decreases them?), the easier it is for them to convince us that eating up every minute of our lives with their demands is an acceptable way to treat employees.
It's all overwhelming. Of course, in my case, it could just be that it is a function of age to think that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. My views are probably skewed.
One of the negative effects of the Web (and USA Today before it) is the decreased understanding of complex issues. Ironically and sadly, as the world becomes more complex, the willingness to consider issues in depth and gather sufficient background to make informed decisions has reached an all-time-low threshold. Life is more complex than ever. The Internet has connected the world in ways that were unimaginable before its invention, which requires a greater understanding of the cultures we are now allowed to directly interact with. The technologies we use are complex beyond belief, and due to corporate greed, are "upgraded" with an unnecessary rapidity that is impossible to keep up with in terms of finances, much less comprehension.
Supposedly, we have more information available than ever before. But the quality and depth of that information have decreased dramatically. I was a journalism student when USA Today launched, and we discussed the fear that, in the effort to compete, newspapers would present shorter and shorter articles with less background and less analysis. That fear has definitely come to fruition. Information on the Web is even worse. Sure, it's possible to find basic, low-level information on almost anything instantly, which is great if one wants to, for example, look up an unfamiliar name used on a news report. But it is so difficult to find anything that provides any kind of in-depth information on anything that I forbid my writing students to use Web pages in papers. The "mile-wide-and-inch-deep" nature of Internet information does not provide a true understanding of much of anything.
Of course, this problem is as complex as any other, and it's wrong to attribute it to Web and newspaper design. Part of the problem is the one I have constantly been harping on: technology has provided an avenue for people to be in constant contact with people placing conflicting demands on their time and energy, so no one really has time to consider anything in depth, anyway. Which came first: the need for down-and-dirty information created by increasing demands on and decreasing patience by readers or the technology and layouts that permit it? It's impossible to say, but it has become a situation that feeds on itself. The result is a downward spiral in the understanding of the complexity of the world around us as the world becomes more complex.
Meanwhile, those who have a vested interest in the public NOT thinking and reacting in knee-jerk fashion -- politicians, corporations, employers, etc. -- are laughing with glee. The less we understand the complexitities of situations, the less we think critically, the easier it is for them to convince us that we should vote for them by relying on meaningless catch-phrases, the easier it is for them to convince us that we need products to solve "problems" that don't exist (do we NEED a new Windows operating system? Are the little hair follicle bumps under our arms such a problem that we need a deodorant that decreases them?), the easier it is for them to convince us that eating up every minute of our lives with their demands is an acceptable way to treat employees.
It's all overwhelming. Of course, in my case, it could just be that it is a function of age to think that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. My views are probably skewed.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Might the Internet impact print media?
Because it was written in 1997, I wonder how relevant the findings related to usability/conciseness explained by Morkes and Nielsen are now that we are ten years ahead. Perhaps I've been spoiled by broadband at work and at home, but I doubt the waiting for pictures and search results users did in '97 is comparable to what I currently experience. Even pages with lots of Flash animation and HQ images load relatively quickly for me.
Likewise, technology has probably changed the end-users' willingness to scroll down. I doubt many people had scroll wheels on their mice ten years ago, but I wouldn't think of buying a mouse without one now. Therefore, I'm not picky about whether I am required to scroll down or not. On the other hand, I would abhor scrolling sideways (using the same techniques a user in '97 would do to scroll down) without my Mighty Mouse. Since most of us don't have them, I imagine that's why it's considered rude to pull a Whitesnake.
Judy Gregory mentions that we've always scanned print media--brochures and leaflets are probably the best examples--but it's more a question of genre than whether it's written in code or not. Yet she is hesitant to make the same claim about novels and newspapers, which I find interesting. I have a hunch that we might be able to at least include the latter in scannable texts.
Take the Wall Street Journal. Wait, I'm sorry--WSJ 3.0. I remember the old style--extra wide pages, long columns of text with few pictures (even then, generally black and white illustrations). Now it more resembles the USA Today-style format that is chunkier, more aesthetically pleasing, and, of course, easier to scan. Is this just an isolated example, or is it indicative that we as a public are less patient when it comes to getting information?
Likewise, technology has probably changed the end-users' willingness to scroll down. I doubt many people had scroll wheels on their mice ten years ago, but I wouldn't think of buying a mouse without one now. Therefore, I'm not picky about whether I am required to scroll down or not. On the other hand, I would abhor scrolling sideways (using the same techniques a user in '97 would do to scroll down) without my Mighty Mouse. Since most of us don't have them, I imagine that's why it's considered rude to pull a Whitesnake.
Judy Gregory mentions that we've always scanned print media--brochures and leaflets are probably the best examples--but it's more a question of genre than whether it's written in code or not. Yet she is hesitant to make the same claim about novels and newspapers, which I find interesting. I have a hunch that we might be able to at least include the latter in scannable texts.
Take the Wall Street Journal. Wait, I'm sorry--WSJ 3.0. I remember the old style--extra wide pages, long columns of text with few pictures (even then, generally black and white illustrations). Now it more resembles the USA Today-style format that is chunkier, more aesthetically pleasing, and, of course, easier to scan. Is this just an isolated example, or is it indicative that we as a public are less patient when it comes to getting information?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)