Brian Carroll | Berry College | Class Homepage
“The Web is jam-packed with empty, incoherent, ill-organized, meaningless, repetitive pages. Gunk. Spam. Junk. Crap. It gives the Web a bad name.” –Rachel McAlpine, consultant, Web designer, author
Writing for the Web: Exactly the same and completely different
One of the chief differences in writing for the Web compared with writing for
traditional print media is that Web users do not merely read
online content, they interact with it. Online media are not one-way, or at least
they shouldn’t be. Hypertext allows this interaction, or “reading,”
to be non-hierarchical and non-linear, more like entering a matrix
and moving around within it than reading left to right, line by line.
As author Carolyn Dowling (1999) put it, “Writers of hypertext . . . might be described as the designers and builders of an information ‘space’ to be explored by their readers.” Interactivity, multimedia and space-building are the emphases here.
BUT: The fact that Web writing appears on a computer screen rather than a bound book does not diminish the writing’s need to be clear, concise, complete and correct. Web content, like any other type of content, requires good writing. It just seems as though more poor writing finds its way on the more technologically democratic Web.
Also unchanged by new media are many of the important roles of the writer, which include:
Credibility is a major issue for any information provider, and that certainly has not changed on the Web. Given the preponderance of Web page publishers and the relative ease of publishing, in many ways source credibility is an even bigger issue on the Web.
Credibility studies suggest several elements that can give users confidence in a site and its content. Briefly, these include:
A brand new day
The Internet, and the computer interface have greatly affected human communication.
The online reader sits with hand on mouse while scanning text on a monitor that
is an uncomfortable distance away.
If the experience of reading is fundamentally different, the writing, then, should be fundamentally different, as well. To an extent perhaps unprecedented, Web writers must get to the point. This is true for all writers, but because of the medium, it is perhaps even more a priority for Web writers. (Think for a moment about those who will be asked to write news for delivery to and through mobile phone display screens.)
Consider these points of departure for Web content as compared to that for print media:
The Web is ephemeral, unlike ink on paper. The context and the purpose, then, should be made readily clear. This is especially true since many Web users often are hunting for a specific kind of information, rather than curling up by the fire for a cozy night with their Macintosh. Online there often is an immediate need for information. This premium on specificity is unique to the Web, which, because of the low costs of publishing, allows for “narrow-casting” as well as broadcasting. Content for small, targeted audiences is common on the Web, as the growth in blogging underlines.
Other examples of narrow-casting or niches now possible because of the Web:
A related point concerns the harsh reality that all Web content is appearing on a computer screen. CRT screens are little fun to read, so Web writers should be sensitive to contributing to eyestrain. The discomfort of reading via computer explains why Web users scan content rather than reading word for word. Scanners need clues, sign posts, highlights. So content should be shaped for scanning. This means, among other things, using headings, sub-heads, hyperlinks, lists and font and color changes.
Though theoretically space is unlimited online, long blocks of text will inhibit reading. If there is a lot of content to present, it should be layered, or arrayed to permit drilling. Readers online typically want to read only as much as they have to; layering allows them to read as much or as little as they want.
Layers can include:
In a study by the Poynter Institute and Stanford University, researchers tracked users’ eye movements, in particular those of people who read newspapers online. Among the findings was that these online readers fixed their eyes first on words, not images. This is the opposite of how we understand people read print, in which readers are grabbed first by photos, then by headlines and finally text. It is both an opportunity and a challenge for the Web writer. Words are more important, but scanning readers will read less of them.
One usability study showed that perhaps 79% of Web users merely scan any new page they download. Only 16% reported reading word for word (Nielsen). With these harsh figures in mind, Web design specialist Jakob Nielsen recommends several page characteristics that can enhance “scannability”:
If layering and providing aids for scanning are major points of departure for online content, hyperlinking is another. Paper has a fixed structure; hypertextual environments do not. Think about how online content is structured and how easily that structure can be subverted.
As Dowling reminded, Web writers are not merely presenting a narrative, with a beginning, a middle and an end. Web writers and designers are builders of a space. Links are jumping off points within this space, and they can provide access to information throughout the Web.
When composing headlines, sub-heads and hyperlinks, Web writers should think in terms of key words. “The Web writer must enter the mind of the site’s target visitors and second-guess their choice of vocabulary,” McAlpine wrote. Text for the Web, therefore, must be rich in key words. Perhaps a useful metaphor here is rock climbing. Web users set out to scale an information mountain. The more key words Web writers can provide, words jutting out even slightly from the smooth face of the mountain, the more places the reader can grab on, step up and keep moving.
Another benefit of key words is their service to search engines. Google, in particular, looks for key words, particularly in the title bar that sits atop a browser window, in meta tags in the HTML code that created the page, but also within the content itself. The primacy online of key words is in part attributable to AOL (key word: AOL), Google, and Web searching in general.
Web writing should be created with a potentially international audience in mind. Visitors could come from anywhere. Short sentences, an active voice and simple, concrete words, among other things, help international audiences, which will be discussed in more depth later.
The interactive and multimedia dimensions of Web pages mean that Web writers often are responsible for elements previously left to editors, copy editors and even programmers. Web writers should attend to titles, alt tags, even a Web page’s meta tags. Online writers and editors have to be jacks-of-all-trades. Online media editors have been called multimedia journalists (Brooks and Sissors, 364).
When developing content, the question must be asked, what will best convey this information? A story? A graphic? Video or audio clip? All of the above? Web writers, then, are called upon to think in visual as well as written terms and concepts.
Giving users choices acknowledges that the online environment is influenced and sometimes directly controlled by users. The one-way producer-consumer relationship is not as relevant on the Web. How users view content, particularly the order in which they view or scan it, is up to the user him- or herself.
According to McAlpine, one of the mistakes inexperienced Web writers make is to assume that everyone enters a site through the home page. This assumption carries with it the inference that the visitors know the context of all the other pages on the site. This simply isn’t so, so each and every page should be independent, with its own self-contained context. This is especially true in the Google era. Google can and, depending on the search terms, will direct searchers to specific pages, pages deep within a site or larger document.
Technology
One of the main differences between the printed word and text online is that
the latter’s residence in non-linear, hypertextual environments that support
multimedia. Communication tools, therefore, include audio, video, Flash movies,
graphics and hyperlinks, as well as wholly separate sets of technologies such
as those enabling online discussion, chat and instant messaging, among other
applications.
Brooks and Sissors wrote that online
media can “combine the depth of newspapers and magazines with the immediacy
of radio and television” (365). They
can combine the eye appeal of television with some of the lasting qualities
of magazines.
Audio and video: Better bandwidth and improvements in streaming
video and audio are cutting download and waiting times, but judicious use of
these media still is strongly recommended. Short clips are best because of download
times and users’ short attention spans. Adding audio and/or video merely
because it is available is no different than dumping text. Their use should
be deliberate.
Flash movies: Flash content is appealing because it can be interactive, it is a movie – there is motion and animation. Because it employs vector graphics Flash does not require a lot of bandwidth. The key is to be deliberate, using Flash only after determining that animation is the best way to make the point and/or engage users. The downside is that Flash requires a Macromedia Flash plug-in. Any time users are required to take action, like updating or downloading software, the audience for that content will dwindle. Flash should, therefore, be used only in special circumstances. When Flash is used, it should not loop endlessly, viewers should be able to skip or avoid it, sound should not play automatically, and the Flash window should not block the rest of the site’s content.
Discussion and chat: Online editor Anthony Tedesco writes that “at the root of it all, the Web is chock full of people who like to talk and share and complain.” For this reason, discussion, chat and bulletin boards have been very popular wherever community is offered or claimed. Online newspapers, for example, have embraced these technologies to foster dialogue and make connections.
A comprehensive site about all things
Internet
http://www.livinginternet.com
Webgrammar, an excellent online
writing source
http://www.webgrammar.com
Arts & Letters Daily, for all
writers and readers
http://www.aldaily.com/
Jakob Nielsen’s site, for
usability studies and a wealth of intelligence on design
http://www.useit.com
Assignment:
Choose
a Web site that you visit regularly and where you read a lot of the content.
Write a roughly 700-word critique of the site informed by this module’s
presentation. Describe how the writing style of the Web site holds your
attention. What are the writing’s strong points? What are some areas
that could be improved? Let’s say you’re hired as the site’s
editor-in-chief: Make specific recommendations. What are the other elements
or features of the site that promote your consumption of it (think of
all the elements described in this module)? How are graphics and visuals
incorporated in the site and do they encourage use of the site? How? Hyperlink
to sources and examples where appropriate. |