Columnist Jon Fine, in the June 27 issue of BusinessWeek, says that at least three magazine companies are looking to integrate advertising into editorial content, sort of like how companies place products in movies and television shows as sort of subliminal advertising.
I think that is an empty Shell of an idea and certainly not one that makes me want to Shout Yahoo! It is hard enough to Ford the ever-growing stream of ads, especially those at the front of the -- it really makes me Mad -- Magazine. We need to Target these advertisers and try to stop this high Tide of bad ideas, even if we have to Sprint to do it. We have to close The Gap in publishers' thinking about all this if we hope to have a Goodyear reading magazines.
Now back to your regularly scheduled blog.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Menus or icons: browser whine II
I mentioned a while ago that I think one of the problems with web design may not be a design issue at all, but a browser issue, a HCI (Human Computer Interface -- add that to our alphabet soup list) issue.
I recently read an article in Computers in Human Behavior that discussed a research project involving subjects using menu-based interfaces vs. icon-based interfaces. A major problem in HCI is disorientation, especially upon first encountering a web page, cell phone or etc. Once the disorientation sets in, anxiety and giving up follow.
It seems that some people understand and prefer menus, while others prefer icons. Actually there is some evidence that one works better with some tasks, while the other works better with some others.
So to truly provide an optimal experience for web site visitors one would almost have to allow visitors to pick their preferred presentation. Operating system windows already do this, why not browsers?
If we could find a better way to allow the person facing the monitor to control the interface, we would be better designers.
I recently read an article in Computers in Human Behavior that discussed a research project involving subjects using menu-based interfaces vs. icon-based interfaces. A major problem in HCI is disorientation, especially upon first encountering a web page, cell phone or etc. Once the disorientation sets in, anxiety and giving up follow.
It seems that some people understand and prefer menus, while others prefer icons. Actually there is some evidence that one works better with some tasks, while the other works better with some others.
So to truly provide an optimal experience for web site visitors one would almost have to allow visitors to pick their preferred presentation. Operating system windows already do this, why not browsers?
If we could find a better way to allow the person facing the monitor to control the interface, we would be better designers.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Designing infinity
It occurred to me today that newspaper design consists of all sorts of different kinds of design disciplines.
For instance, the overall design of a newspaper is rather like architecture. Part of the architect's job is to provide different spaces for different uses, to obviously guide the eye (and then the feet) through a space. All this is rather like anchoring certain sections and features in certain parts of the paper. Both activities are geared toward making the interface easy, obvious, and even pleasureable.
Then I thought individual page design is comparable to interior design. Both fields are dedicated to making a visit comfortable and pleasing to the eye. The colors are meant to complement one another and fit into a plan -- they aren't just tossed in as an afterthought. On an individual page -- as in a room -- space is finite and often smaller than you would like, so the idea is to utilize the space available to its best advantage.
There's more, but that's the idea. Space is the common thread, and it is here that the web becomes difficult.
A newspaper is finite: it is thick on Sundays and thin on Mondays. By heft alone, the readers get an idea of what they are in for. There is a beginning and an end. The pages have edges, beyond which lies only the ink-stained kitchen table.
But the web.... Someone (Wurman?) has already said that the never-ending onslaught of information availability is one of the problems with the web, and perhaps even the cause of some anxiety.
Website visitors can't really get the "heft" of a site from a home page, even if they pay attention to the number of links. Who knows how deep those links go? And what about the links that take you off site. Given the kudzu-like growth of web pages, those links, for all practical purposes, lead you off into infinity. It would be like finally getting to the last page of the New York Times only to find A-1 of the Washington Post, under which was the Miami Herald.
How do you design for that? No wonder there is so much discussion and disagreement from so many groups and individuals about web design.
How would an architect design infinity?
For instance, the overall design of a newspaper is rather like architecture. Part of the architect's job is to provide different spaces for different uses, to obviously guide the eye (and then the feet) through a space. All this is rather like anchoring certain sections and features in certain parts of the paper. Both activities are geared toward making the interface easy, obvious, and even pleasureable.
Then I thought individual page design is comparable to interior design. Both fields are dedicated to making a visit comfortable and pleasing to the eye. The colors are meant to complement one another and fit into a plan -- they aren't just tossed in as an afterthought. On an individual page -- as in a room -- space is finite and often smaller than you would like, so the idea is to utilize the space available to its best advantage.
There's more, but that's the idea. Space is the common thread, and it is here that the web becomes difficult.
A newspaper is finite: it is thick on Sundays and thin on Mondays. By heft alone, the readers get an idea of what they are in for. There is a beginning and an end. The pages have edges, beyond which lies only the ink-stained kitchen table.
But the web.... Someone (Wurman?) has already said that the never-ending onslaught of information availability is one of the problems with the web, and perhaps even the cause of some anxiety.
Website visitors can't really get the "heft" of a site from a home page, even if they pay attention to the number of links. Who knows how deep those links go? And what about the links that take you off site. Given the kudzu-like growth of web pages, those links, for all practical purposes, lead you off into infinity. It would be like finally getting to the last page of the New York Times only to find A-1 of the Washington Post, under which was the Miami Herald.
How do you design for that? No wonder there is so much discussion and disagreement from so many groups and individuals about web design.
How would an architect design infinity?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
More on journalebrities
A few posts ago I whined and fussed about those people I call journalebrities, people who are not trained to be journalists but are famous for playing one on television. Nancy Grace and her ilk at her former gig on CourtTV (I was truly disappointed in CNN after they signed on Grace following her embarassing pouty and angry spewings about the Scott Peterson trial). Fox's Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh also come to mind.
I just read that novelist Stephen King recently complained about the same thing.
Anyway, an Annenberg poll of 1,500 Americans this spring found that more Americans think O'Reilly (40%) is a journalist than think the Washington Post's Bob Woodward is (30%). Fifty-three percent didn't even know who Woodward was. Limbaugh was called a journalist by 27%.
At first I was upset -- though not surprised -- with those figures. Then I realized that if Americans are trusting the media less and less, and if they think numbskulls like O'Reilly and Limbaugh are true journalists, maybe we shouldn't worry. Maybe more Americans are recognizing pseudo-journalism when they see it. And they don't like it.
One can only hope. For more info:
Annenberg Survey
I just read that novelist Stephen King recently complained about the same thing.
Anyway, an Annenberg poll of 1,500 Americans this spring found that more Americans think O'Reilly (40%) is a journalist than think the Washington Post's Bob Woodward is (30%). Fifty-three percent didn't even know who Woodward was. Limbaugh was called a journalist by 27%.
At first I was upset -- though not surprised -- with those figures. Then I realized that if Americans are trusting the media less and less, and if they think numbskulls like O'Reilly and Limbaugh are true journalists, maybe we shouldn't worry. Maybe more Americans are recognizing pseudo-journalism when they see it. And they don't like it.
One can only hope. For more info:
Annenberg Survey
Sunday, June 12, 2005
What's most important?
I have been working on a new web site for journalists at weekly newspapers, and I got to thinking about what was the most important point to remember about design and layout for newspapers.
At first, I settled on the grid. If journalists understood how to use a good grid system, their pages would immediately improve, even if they received only reporting training in college. Then I thought, no, it's typography. If they understood even the basics, their pages would improve. But no.
I went through the rest -- white space, color, photos, info graphics and such -- but I ended up where I always do: content.
Ultimately people read newspapers for content. I have heard that the work of a good typographer is mostly invisible to the reader. In a sense, it is even that way for the designer; well, most of the work anyway. Sure, it's good to "surprise" the reader on those special pages. but most of the paper consists of pretty straightforward element placement and packaging.
In that sense little has changed from when we talked about newspaper "makeup."
Make it easy to access, easy to read, pleasurable if you can, and you have done well.
Because good design springs directly from content (I like to call it design morphogenesis), good design can't be done before content, so therefore content has primacy, i.e., content is the most important component of good design.
Watch for my weekly newspaper design site and blog in the coming months.
At first, I settled on the grid. If journalists understood how to use a good grid system, their pages would immediately improve, even if they received only reporting training in college. Then I thought, no, it's typography. If they understood even the basics, their pages would improve. But no.
I went through the rest -- white space, color, photos, info graphics and such -- but I ended up where I always do: content.
Ultimately people read newspapers for content. I have heard that the work of a good typographer is mostly invisible to the reader. In a sense, it is even that way for the designer; well, most of the work anyway. Sure, it's good to "surprise" the reader on those special pages. but most of the paper consists of pretty straightforward element placement and packaging.
In that sense little has changed from when we talked about newspaper "makeup."
Make it easy to access, easy to read, pleasurable if you can, and you have done well.
Because good design springs directly from content (I like to call it design morphogenesis), good design can't be done before content, so therefore content has primacy, i.e., content is the most important component of good design.
Watch for my weekly newspaper design site and blog in the coming months.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Web v. Print Design
I sometimes get stuck thinking in black and white. The previous post (you know, the one below this one...?...) mentions TechDesigners vs. ArtDesigners and how neither alone is really enough.
Then I got to thinking about how much more complicated web design is when compared to print. Hardware issues, software issues, usability issues and such really don't impact, for instance, newspaper designers. While it is helpful for them to know what percentage of screen the press can hold, they really don't have to know ink, paper and the vagaries of the presses rumbling down in the basement. And being concerned about whether someone is reading your paper seated at the kitchen table or standing up on a train is nothing like worrying about whether somone is reading your web page on a monitor or PDA/cell phone.
The challenges are immense. No wonder there appears to be more substantial work and discussion going on in web design, compared to print. Both (all?) kinds of designers must work together to find optimal solutions.
Then I got to thinking about how much more complicated web design is when compared to print. Hardware issues, software issues, usability issues and such really don't impact, for instance, newspaper designers. While it is helpful for them to know what percentage of screen the press can hold, they really don't have to know ink, paper and the vagaries of the presses rumbling down in the basement. And being concerned about whether someone is reading your paper seated at the kitchen table or standing up on a train is nothing like worrying about whether somone is reading your web page on a monitor or PDA/cell phone.
The challenges are immense. No wonder there appears to be more substantial work and discussion going on in web design, compared to print. Both (all?) kinds of designers must work together to find optimal solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)