This is actually not the article from today's reading assignments that I originally intended to write about but the more I thought about it, I realized that this simple, seemingly obvious article is the one that I have been thinking about most.
Truth be told, I tend to think of myself as smarter, more savvy and more sophisticated than the "average" person. I love to read, I read A LOT of different sources, I travel frequently and I work in media, so like most of my colleagues, I can be a bit of a know-it-all. Anytime I hear or read something about "typical" this or "average" that, I assume it doesn't apply to me because...ahem... I'm not "average."
So imagine my shock and chagrin when I read the article "Writing for a Web Audience" by Constance J. Petersen and saw myself in nearly every single point! Yes, I love to read, but when it comes to the web, there I am scanning away, bouncing between multiple open windows, gravitating towards photos and graphics and checking for one or two key concepts before moving on.
While I may spend an hour or more with a paper copy of the New York Times, I probably spend, oh, 10-15 minutes max clicking through the online version every morning. I would guess that I spend an average of one minute (two max) on any article that grabs my interest. With everything else it's a headline, first two sentences and then maybe I'll make a mental note of what I want to come back to and read more fully at the end of the day. (I also e-mail myself copies of articles I want to read later.)
Some of the points Petersen made that resonated the most were:
-Headlines: In a web headline, I want a short, quick phrase that gives me the entire story without reading it. In print, snappy puns work fine. I remember when the Tiger Woods infidelity scandal broke, the NY Post front page said "CHEETAH" with a photo. But the online version said "Woods admits to extramarital affairs". With the Post front page, it could have been cheating at golf OR his marriage, but online there was no question.
-Lists: I love them! I want a web author to give me quick talking points/key concepts that I can take it on my Blackberry or on my computer screen. It's much easier to read five short bullet points than five full paragraphs.
-Inverted pyramid: This makes perfect sense in the context of web writing. Give me the conclusion, the meat and potatoes of the argument or article right at the top just in case I don't scroll down and just want a taste of what the day's conversation will be about. This is the exact opposite of academic writing where I can only appreciate the conclusion after I've been introduced to all the facts and the reasoning process that was used to reach the conclusion.
-Accuracy and grammar: If a website is full of typos, factual inaccuracies and poor grammar, I won't visit a second time. Enough said.
-Link wisely and be current: This was one of the most true points Petersen made. I love "mouseovers" and will most likely read information that pops up in one, but I will rarely if ever click on an embedded link that causes me to navigate away mid-sentence or mid-article. Even though I usually have multiple windows open, I do not take the time to stop, click away, read the background info and then come back to where I left off. Once I leave, I'm probably gone for good!
I appreciate when authors list "related articles" or other articles in a series at the end. Then I have the option of getting more information in a convenient, unobtrusive way.
The crazy irony of this being Petersen's last point, and such a valid one, is that at the end of her article, she provides 8 links and only THREE of them work!!!!
After reading the article and thinking how interesting and true it was, I decided to click on the resources and references she provided and I was stymied by "dead" and outdated links which she so clearly warned against in her article. It was very disappointing and cast a pall over the entire reading experience. Petersen made some great points, but what I will most remember now is that this article ended up being not a great "how-to" but a cautionary tale!
Related links:
This is a link to a blog post and a chart from the New York TImes about the top-50 vocabulary words whose definitions stump readers. These are the words (from the first half of 2010) NY Times readers most often double-click on to get to hyperlinks for definitions:
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/50-fancy-words/?scp=1&sq=readers%20definitions&st=cse
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/topics/topic/2010afterdeadlineblog.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment