I like to be able to see what I'm reading. My brain just hurts less when I try to read things that are easily visible.
This is why I am not a fan of the web versions of print newspapers. The dominating trend is to put as much information on the home page as humanly possible. They want you to read as much as possible while clicking as little as possible. Check out some of the links, which lead to NYTimes.com and my small-town paper's website, SantaCruzSentinel.com. Just look at the home pages, and see how much stuff is on there.
Now, I understand that there are some stories that are bigger than others. At the top of the page ("above the fold" in computer terms), there are five or six main stories that draw your attention right away. And most of the information I'm talking about is "below the fold" when your scroll down some. However, I feel like the website tries to look like the front page of the paper. You got headlines, followed by the first paragraph of the story. And that adds up to a lot of text.
This crowding has two effects on me as a reader.
First, I get distracted from the headline, which is what I want to read first. If I don't care about the headline, then I just skip over it. The sites I'm talking about don't let you skip over it - they foist half the story onto the page anyways, making you read it.
This brings me to my second point. The long blurb crowds the page, and makes all the other text smaller. And the instinct is to lean in to the computer screen to read smaller text. This has adverse effects on my eyes, and my head. As you lean in closer to the screen, your eyes just start to hurt.
What the newspaper companies need to figure out is that web text is different from print text. A newspaper does not generate light, it only reflects light into your eye. A computer screen, on the other hand, generates lots of little light waves that shoot off in all directions. The closer your eyes are to the screen, the more of these light waves hit your eye. This causes eye strain, brain overload, and in general, me quickly closing my web browser.
In contrast, I love the Washington Post's website because they take away the subtext. There's only a few words beneath the headlines, which can now be in bold font, which I can read from across the room. Which is what I ask for, when I'm scanning a page to see what stories I do and do not want to read.
More news sites should follow the Post's lead, and make the website and the newspaper two different entities.
16 years ago
I actually prefer the Times website over the Post, I think it is easier to see all the content on one page. While some of it is distracting, I usually scroll down towards the bottom where everything is separated out by section title and top headlines. The Post just went through a redesign, and to me, it still seems to lag behind a lot of other papers in terms of design. The content also seems to be updated a lot less frequently than the Times.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is all about personal preference, and people have a lot of different opinions. Maybe the future of online papers will include a customizable home screen like the one Google News already uses.
I also hate reading newspapers online. I would much rather have the hard copy of the paper in my hand. Firstly, it is easier for me to shuffle through the pages to find the articles I want to read about, and secondly, I get an aweful headache when I read too much on the computer screen.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I only use online news sites to get more information about a story I have already read in the newspaper, or to keep up on the developing stories. I also use online news sites for references to other sites.
Like LChan said however, it is all about personal preference!
I second that opinion. I despise online reading period. I find that I don't read as well, I often confuse lines, it takes me longer to grasp facts and above all my eyes hurt. I much prefer the feel and smell of a good book or paper over the rather impersonal and non-intimate action of staring at a computer screen. However, that's just how it is to me, as I've always preferred working with paper and pens/pencils over a computer.
ReplyDeleteIt is easier though to get news online. It's faster, the news is fresher and arguably it saves a couple of trees. So usually when I want updates or just easy access I resign myself to my computer. I think the more I do it, the more I become accustomed to it though, and in retrospect it's not a bad way to get your news, aside from the drawback of hurting your eyes.
I completely agree. Reading newspapers online is can be very straining. Although, the benefits of online news is that it is constantly being updated and you don't have to shuffle through pages of articles you could care less about. Personally, I find getting the news updates on my cell phone (oh technology) on the Metro than bringing along the paper and constantly hitting the passenger next to me as I try to flip through sections.
ReplyDeleteSince most people just skim articles online I wonder what this could mean. Will articles become shorter? What are some new ways to keep readers engaged?
You guys would make a lot of old newspaper editors pretty happy. But, let me ask you this: if reading on a screen was easier on the eyes, would your opinions change? It's not hard to imagine higher-resolution screens that better mimic the readability of paper. (We might even see an example on Wednesday.)
ReplyDeleteTo the other point (layout of sites), this is something that could/should be far more customizable. Using CSS, there's no reason why sites can't allow users a ton of different layouts. Given that, one might ask, why don't they??