(continued)
Virginia Postrel, in her 2003 book The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetics Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness, said that we are living in an age of aesthetics. She said that, because of improvements made in mass production technologies and distribution, products could go beyond initial monotony in general look and feel to variety, from an emphasis on sameness and quick production to one of meeting various aesthetic tastes (good and bad).
Customers obviously wanted that. Product differentiation based on function and quality gave way to one based on aesthetics. As Postrel points out, this led to aesthetics taking on marginal economic value in our mass culture. For many, this meant that they would rather pay more, for instance, for a computer with a cool case than one with increased power or functionality. As Postrel put it, for a manufacturer, “adding pleasure may be more important than adding performance attributes.” So in our postmodern age, this has meant that everyone's personal idea of beauty is valid and it thus has value in the marketplace. There is no absolute standard of beauty. My idea of beauty is just as good as anyone's.
This increase of attention on aesthetics has given a fairly recent cultural focus on simply looking good. Postrel notes the increases in personal beauty enhancement products, day spas, nail salons, and so on. It has also meant that businesses give customers not just a handful of choices of some products, but hundreds, though not all of them truly attractive. It has meant that “designers” can give us 12-point, shadowed, underlined brown type on a deep purple background. (If it is on a web page, the type will blink next to 17 animated GIFs.) Postrel also insists that aesthetics should not be left to the professionals, thus implying that expert opinions are worthless and that everyone has the same level of expertise when it comes to separating the good from the bad. Give customers what they want, she says.
This is where we differ. Economically speaking, I think she is spot on. The best example I can think of is the iPod. A large part of its success lies not in its functional quality -- which many believe has not always been up to the level of its design or of the functionality of its competitors -- but in its aesthetics. iPods simply look cool, and the marketing pushes that angle, not how it works. There is no doubt that playing to a variety of consumer tastes makes good economic sense, but is it good for design and designers?
I think not. What has happened is a lot of bad design work has succeeded in the marketplace, even if it falls short of the standards of the professionally trained eye. This is where Design Darwinism has failed us. The Galapagos Islands finches survived through adaptation of the beak size and shape to the particular environment they were in. If your beak didn’t meet the “standard,” or the needs of the environment, you didn’t make it.
In today’s design world, the marketplace isn’t so cruel, the cultural environment not so unforgiving. A capitalist economic system allows anything that sells, and it doesn’t care if it is well-designed or not, as long as there are enough people who are willing to buy it. If bad design can find even a small corner of the market, which isn’t hard today largely because of the power of advertising and marketing over the minds of the great unwashed, it isn’t driven out by the good, as Design Darwinism would posit. It may even prosper. That’s why we are surrounded by not just the good designs, but the bad and the ugly.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Why we have bad design, Part 1
Design, unlike art, can be good or bad.
Art is (or it should be) a value-free creation. It merely is. The artist had a vision of something and created a physical manifestation of that vision. Because the artist had no particular goal in mind, just the act of creation, no one truly has the right or ability to say art is good art or bad art. In that sense, what's hanging on the fridge is equal to what's hanging in the Louvre.
Designs, on the other hand, can be good or bad largely because of the functional nature of the concept. Looks aside, a chair, for instance, can be well-designed or poorly designed, good or bad, in terms of its ability to function as a chair. Art has no such functional component.
Here is where design gets interesting in a way many in the various design fields may not consider, and it brings us back to my previous point (below, Aug. 11 and 22) that design is not a single concept, but a bifurcated one. I want to expand on my earlier ideas.
Design includes both a functional component and an aesthetic one. Art is concerned only with aesthetics. I heard an Infiniti commercial recently that touched upon the idea that the car must be both functional and beautiful. But I don't hear the functional/aesthetic split discussed much, at least not among the graphic designers I hang around with. I think it helps explain, however, why we see so much bad design.
First, all designs must attain a certain level of functional competency before they can be deemed good or even acceptable. Going back to our chair example, it must be able to function at least minimally at holding up a bent human form to even be called a chair. If you can't sit on it, it isn't a chair. In a sense, this functional aspect of design is integral to any concept and in fact arises instantly with the observation and naming of it. In other words, just by saying or even thinking chair or fan or ad or shoe or building, the functional nature of the item is in play. Everyone can have the ability to judge a design as good or bad on its functional characteristics.
Judgment of the aesthetic side of design is where it begins to get interesting.
Aesthetics, or the theory of beauty, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is a huge field that has been around since antiquity. It didn’t really blossom until leisure activities became more prevalent in the eighteenth century, and modern discussions only go back to about the 1960s. I’m no philosopher, and I don’t want to play one on the web. I also don’t want to get into any of the various philosophical arguments about aesthetics, but I do want to side with those who believe it takes a special sensibility, not shared by all, to see beauty. Again, anyone can judge whether a chair or a brochure or a building is good in terms of its functional characteristics and maybe even whether it is gaudy, dull or elegant, which some consider secondary aesthetic characteristics. But the ability to recognize beauty in physical forms is simply a trait that not all possess.
It is, however, a trait that people believe they possess. When someone says a design is good (and most people include both the functional and the aesthetic when they do so), he or she doesn’t believe a personal, subjective opinion is being shared, but that an accepted Truth is being illuminated. When they say, “That is well designed,” they don’t think they are saying, “I like that design” or “I think that is a good design.” In other words, anyone who utters such a statement believes that their personal recognition of beauty in the design of whatever they are looking at is universal and that they are merely stating the obvious. This brings us back around to the plethora of bad design in the world: the marketplace has found it can exploit the notion that everyone has good taste.
Virginia Postrel, in her 2003 book The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetics Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness, said that we are living in an age of aesthetics. She said that, because of improvements ....(more to come)
Art is (or it should be) a value-free creation. It merely is. The artist had a vision of something and created a physical manifestation of that vision. Because the artist had no particular goal in mind, just the act of creation, no one truly has the right or ability to say art is good art or bad art. In that sense, what's hanging on the fridge is equal to what's hanging in the Louvre.
Designs, on the other hand, can be good or bad largely because of the functional nature of the concept. Looks aside, a chair, for instance, can be well-designed or poorly designed, good or bad, in terms of its ability to function as a chair. Art has no such functional component.
Here is where design gets interesting in a way many in the various design fields may not consider, and it brings us back to my previous point (below, Aug. 11 and 22) that design is not a single concept, but a bifurcated one. I want to expand on my earlier ideas.
Design includes both a functional component and an aesthetic one. Art is concerned only with aesthetics. I heard an Infiniti commercial recently that touched upon the idea that the car must be both functional and beautiful. But I don't hear the functional/aesthetic split discussed much, at least not among the graphic designers I hang around with. I think it helps explain, however, why we see so much bad design.
First, all designs must attain a certain level of functional competency before they can be deemed good or even acceptable. Going back to our chair example, it must be able to function at least minimally at holding up a bent human form to even be called a chair. If you can't sit on it, it isn't a chair. In a sense, this functional aspect of design is integral to any concept and in fact arises instantly with the observation and naming of it. In other words, just by saying or even thinking chair or fan or ad or shoe or building, the functional nature of the item is in play. Everyone can have the ability to judge a design as good or bad on its functional characteristics.
Judgment of the aesthetic side of design is where it begins to get interesting.
Aesthetics, or the theory of beauty, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is a huge field that has been around since antiquity. It didn’t really blossom until leisure activities became more prevalent in the eighteenth century, and modern discussions only go back to about the 1960s. I’m no philosopher, and I don’t want to play one on the web. I also don’t want to get into any of the various philosophical arguments about aesthetics, but I do want to side with those who believe it takes a special sensibility, not shared by all, to see beauty. Again, anyone can judge whether a chair or a brochure or a building is good in terms of its functional characteristics and maybe even whether it is gaudy, dull or elegant, which some consider secondary aesthetic characteristics. But the ability to recognize beauty in physical forms is simply a trait that not all possess.
It is, however, a trait that people believe they possess. When someone says a design is good (and most people include both the functional and the aesthetic when they do so), he or she doesn’t believe a personal, subjective opinion is being shared, but that an accepted Truth is being illuminated. When they say, “That is well designed,” they don’t think they are saying, “I like that design” or “I think that is a good design.” In other words, anyone who utters such a statement believes that their personal recognition of beauty in the design of whatever they are looking at is universal and that they are merely stating the obvious. This brings us back around to the plethora of bad design in the world: the marketplace has found it can exploit the notion that everyone has good taste.
Virginia Postrel, in her 2003 book The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetics Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness, said that we are living in an age of aesthetics. She said that, because of improvements ....(more to come)
Monday, October 02, 2006
Newspaper Design Payoff
I am just catching up with some summer reading, including the July Editor&Publisher, in which a story covers 10 papers that “do it right.” Included is the Bakersfield Californian, which hired an outside consultant to lead the staff in a redesign of the paper.
The high-profile consultant no doubt commanded a pile of dough for the work, but did it grow the business? Initially, yes, though it may have been theHawthorne
After the initial buzz wore off, circulation leveled off, despite the redesign and major content changes. The Census web site reports theBakersfield
I don’t mean to pick on the Californian (I did some design consulting for them many years ago, and no, I don’t know if it helped the biz!!!). But I do wonder if all the format, design and content changes in the dead-trees newspaper product really are worth the time and effort. I have been threatening to do a research project along these lines, and maybe I should. One day.
The high-profile consultant no doubt commanded a pile of dough for the work, but did it grow the business? Initially, yes, though it may have been the
After the initial buzz wore off, circulation leveled off, despite the redesign and major content changes. The Census web site reports the
I don’t mean to pick on the Californian (I did some design consulting for them many years ago, and no, I don’t know if it helped the biz!!!). But I do wonder if all the format, design and content changes in the dead-trees newspaper product really are worth the time and effort. I have been threatening to do a research project along these lines, and maybe I should. One day.
Coming soon: More on Design and Design Darwinisn.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Design and Darwin, Part 2
Good design, obviously, has both legs and one other attribute that I call Design Morphogenesis. One good definition of morphogenesis is “The process in complex system-environment exchanges that tends to elaborate a system's given form or structure. Examples are …evolution and learning. A morphogenic system is capable of maintaining its continuity and integrity by changing essential aspects of its structure or organization.”
Rather like Darwin’s finches, good designs follow the dictum of form must follow function, i.e., the form (or design) must spring naturally from the functional needs of the artifact, whether it is a chair, a web page or a newspaper. And also like the variety of finches on different Galapagos islands, good design must adapt as functional needs change.
Since I work mainly in the field of newspaper design, allow me to go there for an example. Years ago Long Island’s Newsday went with the tabloid format, despite its bad reputation for “yellow journalism,” because most of its readers wanted to read it on the train into Manhattan each day. The tab format is much easier to read on a train than a broadsheet, like the New York Times. Form follows function.
One can see this good/bad design dichotomy all around: sticking with newspapers, let’s compare the design of The Hartford Courant, The Boston Globe or Germany’s Die Zeit with that of the local fishwrap. It is clear that (a) functionally/structurally they are all alike, and (b) aesthetically, there is a wide gap. You can see the design gap everywhere you look: buildings, advertisements, cars, clothes.
The problem is that too many people involved appear to be missing the gene for aesthetics. But because the ability to design is so widespread, Design Darwinism doesn’t have the chance to operate: the hordes of bad simply overwhelm the good. How does this happen? That brings us to memes.
According to memecentral.com, “Memes are the basic building blocks of our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life.” In other words memes extend Darwinian evolution to our culture and our minds. Once a mutant meme, or idea, enters our culture, it can spread like a virus, especially in today’s techno-mediacentric world.
For instance, at the beginning of the 20th century, it was considered good to be pale. Having a sun tan meant that you were a poor, lower-class soul, doomed to work outside as a common laborer. Then somehow the meme mutated and the opposite became true. Now people try purposefully to get as tanned as possible, using tanning salons and tanning creams, both of which would have been incomprehensible a century or so ago. Culture adapted to the needs of the new meme, spread largely by the media.
For my money, the worst recent design meme was desktop publishing. Once the Mac and PageMaker hit the world, everybody – even the “one-legged” people – truly believed that they could design quality print pieces. Soon, the ugly overwhelmed the good and the world of graphic design has never been the same. The equivalent has happened in other design. Not that I am a neo-Luddite, but I lay the blame at the feet of technology, that great leveler of true talent.
Technology has allowed the bad to surpass the good by putting tools in the hands of people who shouldn’t be allowed to design.
Darwin’s finches wouldn’t have survived, despite their impressive adaptability, if a competitor had the tools to drive most of them off the island. Good design has failed to drive out the bad because technology allows its greater numbers to overwhelm.
And we two-legged designers continue to shake our heads and suffer.
Rather like Darwin’s finches, good designs follow the dictum of form must follow function, i.e., the form (or design) must spring naturally from the functional needs of the artifact, whether it is a chair, a web page or a newspaper. And also like the variety of finches on different Galapagos islands, good design must adapt as functional needs change.
Since I work mainly in the field of newspaper design, allow me to go there for an example. Years ago Long Island’s Newsday went with the tabloid format, despite its bad reputation for “yellow journalism,” because most of its readers wanted to read it on the train into Manhattan each day. The tab format is much easier to read on a train than a broadsheet, like the New York Times. Form follows function.
One can see this good/bad design dichotomy all around: sticking with newspapers, let’s compare the design of The Hartford Courant, The Boston Globe or Germany’s Die Zeit with that of the local fishwrap. It is clear that (a) functionally/structurally they are all alike, and (b) aesthetically, there is a wide gap. You can see the design gap everywhere you look: buildings, advertisements, cars, clothes.
The problem is that too many people involved appear to be missing the gene for aesthetics. But because the ability to design is so widespread, Design Darwinism doesn’t have the chance to operate: the hordes of bad simply overwhelm the good. How does this happen? That brings us to memes.
According to memecentral.com, “Memes are the basic building blocks of our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life.” In other words memes extend Darwinian evolution to our culture and our minds. Once a mutant meme, or idea, enters our culture, it can spread like a virus, especially in today’s techno-mediacentric world.
For instance, at the beginning of the 20th century, it was considered good to be pale. Having a sun tan meant that you were a poor, lower-class soul, doomed to work outside as a common laborer. Then somehow the meme mutated and the opposite became true. Now people try purposefully to get as tanned as possible, using tanning salons and tanning creams, both of which would have been incomprehensible a century or so ago. Culture adapted to the needs of the new meme, spread largely by the media.
For my money, the worst recent design meme was desktop publishing. Once the Mac and PageMaker hit the world, everybody – even the “one-legged” people – truly believed that they could design quality print pieces. Soon, the ugly overwhelmed the good and the world of graphic design has never been the same. The equivalent has happened in other design. Not that I am a neo-Luddite, but I lay the blame at the feet of technology, that great leveler of true talent.
Technology has allowed the bad to surpass the good by putting tools in the hands of people who shouldn’t be allowed to design.
Darwin’s finches wouldn’t have survived, despite their impressive adaptability, if a competitor had the tools to drive most of them off the island. Good design has failed to drive out the bad because technology allows its greater numbers to overwhelm.
And we two-legged designers continue to shake our heads and suffer.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Design and Darwin, Part 1
Design is a ubiquitous human undertaking. Nearly every human artifact is touched by someone involved in its design. Buildings are designed. So are newspapers, corkscrews, business cards, road signs, home interiors, web pages, freeway interchanges, tools, furniture, software interfaces, golf clubs, coffee pots, and so on.
But what actually is design? Is it a professional field? A craft? A philosophy? Why isn’t design alone a discipline in academe? People studying design almost immediately break off into balkanized and narrow fields, such as graphic design, interior design, furniture design, automotive design, human-computer interface design, among many others.
Perhaps most important, Why is there so much BAD design?
Look around and pay attention: printed pieces you can barely read, uncomfortable (and homely) chairs, lamps with the switches hidden out of sight under the shade, buildings that lead one to believe a door is where there is none, car dashboards with important gauges hidden by the windshield wiper lever, electronics with all the connections in the back, voting machines/ballots in Florida, among thousands of others.
Like beauty, bad design might be in the eye of the beholder, but bad design is more easily and widely agreed upon than, for instance, bad art. It also seems to me that bad design is more prevalent than good, the opposite of what one would think or hope for. In other words there is no such thing as “Design Darwinism,” i.e., only the fittest survive. With the law of the Design Jungle, most of the strong survive, but lots of the weak make it as well.
One reason that Design Darwinism (unfortunately) doesn’t hold true is that design is inherent in everything; it is a natural part of everything made by humankind. And, unlike its cousin art, it is an activity that can be performed by nearly anyone. But because it is a bifurcated concept, with one part accessible to anyone and the other not, failures happen with alarming – and often unpleasant – regularity.
The two parts of design are necessary for good design to occur. I call the two parts functional/structural and aesthetic. Neither is sufficient alone. They are two parts of a greater whole, as with the two halves of scissors. One without the other is virtually useless. Useless for good design, that is; bad design uses only one.
The problem with bad design is that it focuses on the functional/structural and ignores the aesthetic, or sometimes vice versa. The chair I am suffering on as I type is structurally just like the Eames Lounge Chair: splayed out legs with a central pedestal supporting a seat, a separate back piece and two arms. Aesthetically, however, the two are miles apart. Mine was no doubt created by no more than a journeyman. Charles Eames was a master.
So bad design is usually created by people who understand only half of good design, and there are many, many more of those than good designers. Sort of like an architect who understands all the engineering aspects of a building – load bearing capacities and the like – but has no ability to please the eye. Unlike art, which is largely hidden away in museums, designed artifacts are all around us and we all are forcibly exposed to the bad choices made by “one-legged” designers.
More next post...
But what actually is design? Is it a professional field? A craft? A philosophy? Why isn’t design alone a discipline in academe? People studying design almost immediately break off into balkanized and narrow fields, such as graphic design, interior design, furniture design, automotive design, human-computer interface design, among many others.
Perhaps most important, Why is there so much BAD design?
Look around and pay attention: printed pieces you can barely read, uncomfortable (and homely) chairs, lamps with the switches hidden out of sight under the shade, buildings that lead one to believe a door is where there is none, car dashboards with important gauges hidden by the windshield wiper lever, electronics with all the connections in the back, voting machines/ballots in Florida, among thousands of others.
Like beauty, bad design might be in the eye of the beholder, but bad design is more easily and widely agreed upon than, for instance, bad art. It also seems to me that bad design is more prevalent than good, the opposite of what one would think or hope for. In other words there is no such thing as “Design Darwinism,” i.e., only the fittest survive. With the law of the Design Jungle, most of the strong survive, but lots of the weak make it as well.
One reason that Design Darwinism (unfortunately) doesn’t hold true is that design is inherent in everything; it is a natural part of everything made by humankind. And, unlike its cousin art, it is an activity that can be performed by nearly anyone. But because it is a bifurcated concept, with one part accessible to anyone and the other not, failures happen with alarming – and often unpleasant – regularity.
The two parts of design are necessary for good design to occur. I call the two parts functional/structural and aesthetic. Neither is sufficient alone. They are two parts of a greater whole, as with the two halves of scissors. One without the other is virtually useless. Useless for good design, that is; bad design uses only one.
The problem with bad design is that it focuses on the functional/structural and ignores the aesthetic, or sometimes vice versa. The chair I am suffering on as I type is structurally just like the Eames Lounge Chair: splayed out legs with a central pedestal supporting a seat, a separate back piece and two arms. Aesthetically, however, the two are miles apart. Mine was no doubt created by no more than a journeyman. Charles Eames was a master.
So bad design is usually created by people who understand only half of good design, and there are many, many more of those than good designers. Sort of like an architect who understands all the engineering aspects of a building – load bearing capacities and the like – but has no ability to please the eye. Unlike art, which is largely hidden away in museums, designed artifacts are all around us and we all are forcibly exposed to the bad choices made by “one-legged” designers.
More next post...
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Don't mind me, I'm just a professor
This post is really going to be about the future of newspapers, but I couldn't resist the headline. A national media organization recently told me I wasn't suited for a position with them because I, as an academic, couldn't hack the pace of a job in the "real" world!!! I wouldn't mind trying a job that didn't work me 7 days a week (albeit just 10 months a year, and the "real" job was 11 mos.), one that didn't require me to teach three classes per term, each with many hours of prep, grading and student meetings. Add in developing new classes and curricula, departmental meetings, committee meetings and reports, mentoring of new faculty, my own writing ( book and three articles at present), my work as volunteer webmaster for the local IABC chapter, answering student e-mails, helping the student newspaper with design, doing my own reading to keep up in a rapidly changing field, writing occasionally in this blog, writing letters of recommendation for current and former students, and on and on.
Right now, a "real job" sounds pretty good! Talk about misguided....
On to the newspaper biz, which is still struggling with the idea that if it ain't in ink on crushed, dead trees, it's none of their business. Many papers are slow to catch on, and the non-profit organizations supposedly guiding them into the future can't seem to do so.
W. Russell Neumann (another lowly professor) said way back in 1991 that newspapers should be thinking about taking the money spent on the print product and invest it in online content.( from Philip Meyer's article in the Charlotte Observer, 6/27). I had said basically the same thing a few years earlier. So the content problem was noted years ago. Even the classified ad problem has been around for years, but the newspaper industry has been slow to move, a potentially serious error.
Craigslist has been gnawing away at the valuable classified ad franchise previously held by newspapers, and the site just announced the addition of 100 more cities. More sites, such as Postadshere.com are joining the fray. Yet many newspapers seem unable to adjust to meet the challenge. Newspapers clearly could control the local class ads market because no other medium is better situated to control the local media market. Period. Losing classified ad income could be deadly for the print product. Where's the help?
Perhaps a more important bleeding is the loss of readers, again despite the best efforts of industry organizations to lead the way in growing the audience. Readership has fallen steadily from a high of 80 percent in 1964 to just over 50 percent today. You can't just expect to move the lost print product readers online, at least without some changes in content. The old "shovelware" model just doesn't work. Eli Noam, in an excellent Financial Times article (6/22, ft.com), points out that to offset a 5 percent drop in print circulation, news organizations would have to grow total online and print readership by 50 percent annually to break even.
Noam also says that what newspapers need to do is differentiate their product line and step away from focusing only on the traditional print product, something I have been saying for years (see 4/18 post, below). It's not that young readers abhor news, they just prefer receiving it in non-print ways. Noam says that a bright future awaits those news organizations (N.B.: not newspapers) "that can differentiate their product, establish brand identity, and function as an integrator and filter." In other words, get better online and consider new, even free, print products.
I don't see this in the near future for the vast majority of newspapers, er, news organizations. What little help and leadership they are getting from the news associations seems aimed mostly at large circulation papers. Pity. Most newspapers in this country are small.
Finally, I ran across a news tidbit that said that the Belo group is going to increase operating expenses 12 percent as they diversify their product line. What? A company actually willing to think long-term success instead of keeping shareholders happy with short-term profits? Now that's news. I am going to keep a close eye on Belo to see if it succeeds. You should, too.
Oh, but ignore all of the above thoughts . . . . I am only a professor.
Right now, a "real job" sounds pretty good! Talk about misguided....
On to the newspaper biz, which is still struggling with the idea that if it ain't in ink on crushed, dead trees, it's none of their business. Many papers are slow to catch on, and the non-profit organizations supposedly guiding them into the future can't seem to do so.
W. Russell Neumann (another lowly professor) said way back in 1991 that newspapers should be thinking about taking the money spent on the print product and invest it in online content.( from Philip Meyer's article in the Charlotte Observer, 6/27). I had said basically the same thing a few years earlier. So the content problem was noted years ago. Even the classified ad problem has been around for years, but the newspaper industry has been slow to move, a potentially serious error.
Craigslist has been gnawing away at the valuable classified ad franchise previously held by newspapers, and the site just announced the addition of 100 more cities. More sites, such as Postadshere.com are joining the fray. Yet many newspapers seem unable to adjust to meet the challenge. Newspapers clearly could control the local class ads market because no other medium is better situated to control the local media market. Period. Losing classified ad income could be deadly for the print product. Where's the help?
Perhaps a more important bleeding is the loss of readers, again despite the best efforts of industry organizations to lead the way in growing the audience. Readership has fallen steadily from a high of 80 percent in 1964 to just over 50 percent today. You can't just expect to move the lost print product readers online, at least without some changes in content. The old "shovelware" model just doesn't work. Eli Noam, in an excellent Financial Times article (6/22, ft.com), points out that to offset a 5 percent drop in print circulation, news organizations would have to grow total online and print readership by 50 percent annually to break even.
Noam also says that what newspapers need to do is differentiate their product line and step away from focusing only on the traditional print product, something I have been saying for years (see 4/18 post, below). It's not that young readers abhor news, they just prefer receiving it in non-print ways. Noam says that a bright future awaits those news organizations (N.B.: not newspapers) "that can differentiate their product, establish brand identity, and function as an integrator and filter." In other words, get better online and consider new, even free, print products.
I don't see this in the near future for the vast majority of newspapers, er, news organizations. What little help and leadership they are getting from the news associations seems aimed mostly at large circulation papers. Pity. Most newspapers in this country are small.
Finally, I ran across a news tidbit that said that the Belo group is going to increase operating expenses 12 percent as they diversify their product line. What? A company actually willing to think long-term success instead of keeping shareholders happy with short-term profits? Now that's news. I am going to keep a close eye on Belo to see if it succeeds. You should, too.
Oh, but ignore all of the above thoughts . . . . I am only a professor.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Editor vs. reader: who calls the shots?
In an American Journalism Review article next month, we get to revisit whose news judgment should rule, the editor's or the readers.' You know, the old discussion of giving readers what they should know vs. what they want to know.
Because I am old enough to have set type in Gutenberg's shop (well, at least I worked during the hot type era), I remember the days when the news values of the newsroom held total sway. Readers got what they got and that was that. News and information were not looked at as commodities as they are now. The newspaper was simply something you bought without much thought and took it as it was, sort of like water from the tap. And few people above the poverty line even considered not getting a paper or two, much like they would not think twice about hooking up to city water.
Then came the newsroom's "dirty word": marketing. It was only talked about in disgusted whispers. Some simply said the "m-word." Most saw it as turning the paper over to the readers.
Then reality hit. Newspaper circulation went flat, prior to beginning a steady, slow descent.
All sorts of reasons were cited, but few editors were able to face the new reality of the information marketplace: readers had choices. I was one of the slow ones to leave the "m-word" camp, too. But as the net and other technologies have increased their hold on our lives and the market share, it has become obvious that the audience must be catered to.
I don't think this means a dumbing down of the product, as many once feared. It does mean choosing better (and sometimes different) stories, telling better stories and using all the various technologies to their fullest. Cross-pollinate across technologies: drive people to your web site through the print product and drive people to the print product through the web site. And don't forget cell phones, PDAs and iPods. If you do it well and count those people as readers, circulation probably would be UP.
So who calls the shots? The editor must, of course, but s/he must always make decisions with the reader in mind. It's really their product.
Because I am old enough to have set type in Gutenberg's shop (well, at least I worked during the hot type era), I remember the days when the news values of the newsroom held total sway. Readers got what they got and that was that. News and information were not looked at as commodities as they are now. The newspaper was simply something you bought without much thought and took it as it was, sort of like water from the tap. And few people above the poverty line even considered not getting a paper or two, much like they would not think twice about hooking up to city water.
Then came the newsroom's "dirty word": marketing. It was only talked about in disgusted whispers. Some simply said the "m-word." Most saw it as turning the paper over to the readers.
Then reality hit. Newspaper circulation went flat, prior to beginning a steady, slow descent.
All sorts of reasons were cited, but few editors were able to face the new reality of the information marketplace: readers had choices. I was one of the slow ones to leave the "m-word" camp, too. But as the net and other technologies have increased their hold on our lives and the market share, it has become obvious that the audience must be catered to.
I don't think this means a dumbing down of the product, as many once feared. It does mean choosing better (and sometimes different) stories, telling better stories and using all the various technologies to their fullest. Cross-pollinate across technologies: drive people to your web site through the print product and drive people to the print product through the web site. And don't forget cell phones, PDAs and iPods. If you do it well and count those people as readers, circulation probably would be UP.
So who calls the shots? The editor must, of course, but s/he must always make decisions with the reader in mind. It's really their product.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Newspapers and green lawns
In advertising, there is a principle that says something like: "People don't want fertilizer, they want green lawns." The idea is that ads should focus on the green lawns, not on the chemicals that made it that way because you are then giving people what they want. You are meeting their needs.
Newspapers can learn from this.
People don't want a play-by-play, inverted pyramid story on the city council meeting last night, they want to know what the decisions mean. Tell them a story if you have to, but put the news in your readers' terms, in your readers' lives. Most newspapers still cover the same ol' bureaucratic beats the same ol' ways, and modern readers are bored, bored, bored.
So newspapers, which still hold the franchise for local news -- the names and faces inherent in chronicling the quotidian -- need to continue their solid community coverage. They just need to break free from the old and embrace new ways of approaching the story(see the "experience newspaper" at readership.org).
Many changes in newspapers occur at the big papers and trickle down to the smaller. But with this more personalized approach to writing and presenting the news, I think it is the small dailies and the weeklies that can lead the way. They are less tied to the traditions of newsroom management and organization.
In many ways the future of newspapers lies with them, not with the circulation giants.
Newspapers can learn from this.
People don't want a play-by-play, inverted pyramid story on the city council meeting last night, they want to know what the decisions mean. Tell them a story if you have to, but put the news in your readers' terms, in your readers' lives. Most newspapers still cover the same ol' bureaucratic beats the same ol' ways, and modern readers are bored, bored, bored.
So newspapers, which still hold the franchise for local news -- the names and faces inherent in chronicling the quotidian -- need to continue their solid community coverage. They just need to break free from the old and embrace new ways of approaching the story(see the "experience newspaper" at readership.org).
Many changes in newspapers occur at the big papers and trickle down to the smaller. But with this more personalized approach to writing and presenting the news, I think it is the small dailies and the weeklies that can lead the way. They are less tied to the traditions of newsroom management and organization.
In many ways the future of newspapers lies with them, not with the circulation giants.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
The sound of one drum thumping
And it's my own drum. Two "new" ideas:
A lot of traditional media folks are still wringing their hands about the Internet, blogs, podcasts, iPod downloads and so on. Still trying to figure out how to "fight" the onslaught. The answer is, of course, not to fight, but to hop onboard.
My first "I Told You So Award" to myself comes from re-reading an article I wrote 20 years ago. In it, I addressed the newspaper publishers who were worried about audiotext, videotext and even local cable television (which were like our public access stations now). Even way back then, I pointed out that they were not in the newsPAPER business, but the NEWS business and that they needed to get that news out using whatever technology was available. 1986. What's new?
My second award, the "I've Been Saying This for Years Award," was brought to my attention by an article in the Boston Herald (4/13/06). A BU j-prof is apparently getting a lot of ink for saying that public relations and advertising programs should not share a department with journalism programs. Been saying that for years (That's why I won. . . .).
Every time I have brought this up, I have been almost booed out the door. But it just has always seemed like a no-brainer to me. Journalists, even those who work in the belly of bean-counting conglomerate beasts, are trying to get at the Truth. Journalists and PR folks have nearly always had a bit of an adversary relationship. No matter how much PR folks claim that they always tell the truth to journalists, their jobs depend on spin. And advertising? Don't even get me started (see post below).
Yet we put all these students together in the same program. Journalists need a different training environment. Been saying that for 20 years, too.
End of drum beating.
A lot of traditional media folks are still wringing their hands about the Internet, blogs, podcasts, iPod downloads and so on. Still trying to figure out how to "fight" the onslaught. The answer is, of course, not to fight, but to hop onboard.
My first "I Told You So Award" to myself comes from re-reading an article I wrote 20 years ago. In it, I addressed the newspaper publishers who were worried about audiotext, videotext and even local cable television (which were like our public access stations now). Even way back then, I pointed out that they were not in the newsPAPER business, but the NEWS business and that they needed to get that news out using whatever technology was available. 1986. What's new?
My second award, the "I've Been Saying This for Years Award," was brought to my attention by an article in the Boston Herald (4/13/06). A BU j-prof is apparently getting a lot of ink for saying that public relations and advertising programs should not share a department with journalism programs. Been saying that for years (That's why I won. . . .).
Every time I have brought this up, I have been almost booed out the door. But it just has always seemed like a no-brainer to me. Journalists, even those who work in the belly of bean-counting conglomerate beasts, are trying to get at the Truth. Journalists and PR folks have nearly always had a bit of an adversary relationship. No matter how much PR folks claim that they always tell the truth to journalists, their jobs depend on spin. And advertising? Don't even get me started (see post below).
Yet we put all these students together in the same program. Journalists need a different training environment. Been saying that for 20 years, too.
End of drum beating.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Something wicked this way comes
I hate to connect William Shakespeare, Ray Bradbury and advertising, but here we go.
I usually teach journalism students because of my professional training. Even with the turning over of too much journalism to the gods of infotainment (the bean counters) and the journalebrities (see also entry below, 1/05/06), I truly believe that the main goal of the journalism "industry," if you will, is to get at the Truth, as difficult as that is in our postmodern world.
On the other hand advertising and even public relations people manipulate the facts for their own benefit.
Example: I am certain we all get in the mail those envelopes that try to pass themselves off as a government document or check. The idea, obviously, is to trick the recipient into opening the envelope. Golly, that's sure aboveboard and ethical.
One recent one (below) came in a brown official looking envelope with "Department of Communications" in the upper left, followed by a stern warning to anyone but me opening it. There is the threat of five years imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, according to the cited U.S. Code. Inside? A form letter from a mortgage company saying I qualify to borrow "up to 125%" of the value of my home. Gee, thanks for inviting me into a dangerous level of debt because a company wants to make more money.
I usually teach journalism students because of my professional training. Even with the turning over of too much journalism to the gods of infotainment (the bean counters) and the journalebrities (see also entry below, 1/05/06), I truly believe that the main goal of the journalism "industry," if you will, is to get at the Truth, as difficult as that is in our postmodern world.
On the other hand advertising and even public relations people manipulate the facts for their own benefit.
Example: I am certain we all get in the mail those envelopes that try to pass themselves off as a government document or check. The idea, obviously, is to trick the recipient into opening the envelope. Golly, that's sure aboveboard and ethical.
One recent one (below) came in a brown official looking envelope with "Department of Communications" in the upper left, followed by a stern warning to anyone but me opening it. There is the threat of five years imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, according to the cited U.S. Code. Inside? A form letter from a mortgage company saying I qualify to borrow "up to 125%" of the value of my home. Gee, thanks for inviting me into a dangerous level of debt because a company wants to make more money.
The other one that came yesterday also looked official and came from the "Disbursement Center," with an address in Washington, D.C. "OFFICIAL BUSINESS" is under that, in bold. It is a window envelope and it looks like my name and address is printed on a check. It even says "Pay to the order of:" next to my name. Inside? A faked (though "non-negotiable") check for nearly $50K. Golly Ned, how generous of them to offer me the opportunity to take out a huge equity line! They make more money, and I get to increase my debt.
I understand that sometimes people need this information for entirely legitimate reasons. But don't try to trick me. That's underhanded. But that's advertising.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Journalistic feeding frenzies
I think one of the results of all the cutbacks in newsroom budgets has been a lack of originality in news coverage and a laziness when it comes to following up on stories.
Has anyone besides me noticed that local television news, and to a lesser extent newspapers and national TV news shows, aren't able to, for instance, tell us ahead of time about potential dangers? We don't get reminders about sharks here in Florida as spring arrives, but as soon as we get the first bite, we'll get a rash of stories about sharks, shark attacks, how to avoid shark bites, are our children safe anywhere at all any more, and blah blah blah.
That will last until a bicycle rider gets hit and killed by a car. Them we'll get, "Ten Ways to Ride Safely," "Bikes: Two-Wheeled Death Machines," and "Bike Helmets: Is Your Child's Brain Really Safe?" And the shark stories will be forgotten.
It's fine for media to report what has happened, but I'd like to see more about what might or will happen. That would be helpful.
Then there's the lack of followup, as with the young woman who went missing in Aruba or the lone surviving coal miner in West Virginia. For more than a month it was all-Aruba, all the time. Then suddenly the media feeding frenzy ends and silence sets in. They whip us up for weeks and then let us down as fast as a cold french fry. Time to move on to the next frenzy.
Has anyone besides me noticed that local television news, and to a lesser extent newspapers and national TV news shows, aren't able to, for instance, tell us ahead of time about potential dangers? We don't get reminders about sharks here in Florida as spring arrives, but as soon as we get the first bite, we'll get a rash of stories about sharks, shark attacks, how to avoid shark bites, are our children safe anywhere at all any more, and blah blah blah.
That will last until a bicycle rider gets hit and killed by a car. Them we'll get, "Ten Ways to Ride Safely," "Bikes: Two-Wheeled Death Machines," and "Bike Helmets: Is Your Child's Brain Really Safe?" And the shark stories will be forgotten.
It's fine for media to report what has happened, but I'd like to see more about what might or will happen. That would be helpful.
Then there's the lack of followup, as with the young woman who went missing in Aruba or the lone surviving coal miner in West Virginia. For more than a month it was all-Aruba, all the time. Then suddenly the media feeding frenzy ends and silence sets in. They whip us up for weeks and then let us down as fast as a cold french fry. Time to move on to the next frenzy.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Truth vs. the facts
This whole hoo-hah about James Frey's A Million Little Pieces and Oprah's apology for her on-air call to Larry King defending Frey brings up the journalist's job of using facts to create Truth. That's what journalists do, you know, use facts as a means to an end. The trick is knowing which of the thousands of gatherable facts should be kept and which left out. There are always too many facts, and the mere choice of one fact over another demeans Truth to the absolutist, to the Modernist who believes only in facts.
William Shawn, the great former editor of the New Yorker, sets us up here: "The New Yorker has devoted itself for 59 years not only to facts and literal accuracy but to truth. And truth begins, journalistically, with the facts." (He said this, apparently, about a non-fiction story that used made up characters and quotations.)
Great quote, but notice that he says truth begins with the facts. Facts and literal accuracy can get us off the ground, but can relying only on the facts without the writer's weaving of them create Truth? Can we have woof without warp? Doesn't the very creation of narrative sully the purity of Facts?
I know I can step on a few toes here, but I believe the old saw may be right: "Don't let the facts get in the way of the Truth." (It ranks right up there with: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out.") I don't think a simple reliance on facts always makes for a good story, and it certainly won't always drop you off at Truth's door.
I am not advocating making up facts, but I think intelligent inferences in some stories (such as cerainly went on in Truman Capote's In Cold Blood) is acceptable, if not necessary. If we know that 2 plus X equals 5, then is it a lie to say that 3 plus X equals 6, even though, technically, X is still unknown to us? If Capote reconstructs conversations the murderers had from their own recollections, is that wrong? The factual accuracy may have been lacking, but wasn't the Truth shown?
I suppose this is why my colleagues keep me out of teaching the reporting classes -- they think I will ruin our students. . . . I do think it is a worthy topic for discussion, and I hope the students get that.
Oprah, in her apology to her viewers today, made this exact point in her call to LKL. She said during the call, in essence, that just because Frey lied about some facts, the Truth of his story had helped all sorts of people, so what was the big deal? She was right to recant today, but it shows the issue and the power of Truth in the face of facts.
Frey was wrong. I do think, however, that sometimes an over-reliance on the facts can get in the way of the story, and maybe even keep us from getting at Truth.
William Shawn, the great former editor of the New Yorker, sets us up here: "The New Yorker has devoted itself for 59 years not only to facts and literal accuracy but to truth. And truth begins, journalistically, with the facts." (He said this, apparently, about a non-fiction story that used made up characters and quotations.)
Great quote, but notice that he says truth begins with the facts. Facts and literal accuracy can get us off the ground, but can relying only on the facts without the writer's weaving of them create Truth? Can we have woof without warp? Doesn't the very creation of narrative sully the purity of Facts?
I know I can step on a few toes here, but I believe the old saw may be right: "Don't let the facts get in the way of the Truth." (It ranks right up there with: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out.") I don't think a simple reliance on facts always makes for a good story, and it certainly won't always drop you off at Truth's door.
I am not advocating making up facts, but I think intelligent inferences in some stories (such as cerainly went on in Truman Capote's In Cold Blood) is acceptable, if not necessary. If we know that 2 plus X equals 5, then is it a lie to say that 3 plus X equals 6, even though, technically, X is still unknown to us? If Capote reconstructs conversations the murderers had from their own recollections, is that wrong? The factual accuracy may have been lacking, but wasn't the Truth shown?
I suppose this is why my colleagues keep me out of teaching the reporting classes -- they think I will ruin our students. . . . I do think it is a worthy topic for discussion, and I hope the students get that.
Oprah, in her apology to her viewers today, made this exact point in her call to LKL. She said during the call, in essence, that just because Frey lied about some facts, the Truth of his story had helped all sorts of people, so what was the big deal? She was right to recant today, but it shows the issue and the power of Truth in the face of facts.
Frey was wrong. I do think, however, that sometimes an over-reliance on the facts can get in the way of the story, and maybe even keep us from getting at Truth.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
High Society
I can't figure out why my local daily fishwrap still has the remnants of the old 1950s "society" pages. That's right, they still run police lineup-type photos of the truly rich, the pseudo-rich and the nouveau riche. Do other daily newspapers do this?
What's the point of these people at some local gala celebration, sometimes holding a glass of wine or other high-end beverage? This is news? If it is for a charity, fine. Tell us the money. But don't line up the glitterati and take a picture just to show off their pampered faces. Wasted space.
On the other hand, this is perfectly acceptable, even desirable, for those local weekly papers in most of our communities. That's what they are all about: names and faces, and the more the merrier.
The dailies should stick to news and do it better. Stop trying to be all things to all readers. The community press does it better anyway.
What's the point of these people at some local gala celebration, sometimes holding a glass of wine or other high-end beverage? This is news? If it is for a charity, fine. Tell us the money. But don't line up the glitterati and take a picture just to show off their pampered faces. Wasted space.
On the other hand, this is perfectly acceptable, even desirable, for those local weekly papers in most of our communities. That's what they are all about: names and faces, and the more the merrier.
The dailies should stick to news and do it better. Stop trying to be all things to all readers. The community press does it better anyway.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Schrodinger's cat, the media and spin
"Schrodinger's cat" is a famous mind problem from Erwin Schrodinger, a founder of quantum physics, as reported in a WSJ column last week. It occurred to me that information "spin" acts the same way. Or maybe I should be on the other side of the coin and say that it is about Truth or Reality. It's all very postmodern, and it gives me the shivers.
Here we go. The story is that there is a cat in a box with a vial of cyanide and a radioactive atom. As explained in the WSJ, if the atom decays, the emitted radiation particles smash the vial, releasing the cyanide and killing the cat.
Now, let's say the atom has a 50-50 chance of decaying by noon. When you open the box at noon, is the cat alive or dead?
You may think the simple answer is that it's a coin toss, but quantum physics says it's more complicated than that. QP says that at noon, right before you open the box, the cat is in BOTH states, that it is BOTH alive and dead. Only when you look does one state emerge. This is how atoms work, but recent studies have found that the weirdness of quantum physics continues to work in larger and larger settings, thus impacting (if we are willing to really think about it) the very nature of reality.
What does this have to do with the media and spin?
While thinking about the cat in the box, it struck me that stories in the media work almost the same way. Written objectively, some stories can be read one way or another, depending on the preconceived notions the reader has. To simplify it, let's say a story quotes some numbers ("lies, damn lies, and statistics") and those numbers can either support or not support a certain position.
Before the story is read, it exists in the either/or world of neither truth nor spin -- in fact it is both. Then, read by a proponent or supporter, the story settles into one state and contains truth. But when a non-supporter reads the same story it becomes something else: spin. Same story, different realities. Not different readings, different realities.
It's no wonder those godawful media pundits are yelling at each other all the time.
I may edit this after I think about it some more.
Here we go. The story is that there is a cat in a box with a vial of cyanide and a radioactive atom. As explained in the WSJ, if the atom decays, the emitted radiation particles smash the vial, releasing the cyanide and killing the cat.
Now, let's say the atom has a 50-50 chance of decaying by noon. When you open the box at noon, is the cat alive or dead?
You may think the simple answer is that it's a coin toss, but quantum physics says it's more complicated than that. QP says that at noon, right before you open the box, the cat is in BOTH states, that it is BOTH alive and dead. Only when you look does one state emerge. This is how atoms work, but recent studies have found that the weirdness of quantum physics continues to work in larger and larger settings, thus impacting (if we are willing to really think about it) the very nature of reality.
What does this have to do with the media and spin?
While thinking about the cat in the box, it struck me that stories in the media work almost the same way. Written objectively, some stories can be read one way or another, depending on the preconceived notions the reader has. To simplify it, let's say a story quotes some numbers ("lies, damn lies, and statistics") and those numbers can either support or not support a certain position.
Before the story is read, it exists in the either/or world of neither truth nor spin -- in fact it is both. Then, read by a proponent or supporter, the story settles into one state and contains truth. But when a non-supporter reads the same story it becomes something else: spin. Same story, different realities. Not different readings, different realities.
It's no wonder those godawful media pundits are yelling at each other all the time.
I may edit this after I think about it some more.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The Joy of Advertising
Generally speaking, I consider advertising evil, though necessary. The WSJ ran two stories this week that laid out a vision of the future that is a bit ugly.
On Wednesday, in "Night of the Living Debt," Jesse Eisinger talks about how in 2005 the personal savings rate went negative (i.e., we spent more than we earned) for the first time since the Great Depression. So as always doing the right, ethical thing, companies are advertising deep discounts and/or cash-back deals to keep American consumers buying, despite being in debt over their eyeballs.
The hell with the average American's $8,000 plus in high-interest credit-card debt alone. Let's do what we can to entice them to spend more.
This while CEO pay is soaring beyond mortal belief and the average worker is worse off than they were in Nov. 2001!
Eisenger's article refers to spending "zombies" and makes comparisons to Romero's film, "Dawn of the Dead" from 30 years ago. I think a better comparison flick is 'The Matrix," in which humans exist only to feed the machine: American consumers' sole value seems to be in funding CEO pay and shareholder profits, even at the expense of their own financial well-being.
In a Tuesday article, the WSJ pointed out how the splintering of the mass audience on radio and TV is leading to the demise of the 30-second spot (The demise of the 60-second spot was years ago when it was discovered that American TV-watchers have the attention span of an over-caffeinated squirrel.).
So companies are looking at different ways to get out their message of spend, spend, spend, and the hell with tomorrow.
I am reminded of another movie, "Minority Report," in which consumers are identified by retinal scans as they walk by store windows and then are bombarded by personalized audio messages to spend, spend, spend.
Advertising and marketing folks are probably heartened by these movies. They scare the hell out of me.
Now back to my regularly scheduled job, which is -- you guessed it -- teaching advertising design. I promise to do my best to instill a sense of social responsibility along with creative thinking.
On Wednesday, in "Night of the Living Debt," Jesse Eisinger talks about how in 2005 the personal savings rate went negative (i.e., we spent more than we earned) for the first time since the Great Depression. So as always doing the right, ethical thing, companies are advertising deep discounts and/or cash-back deals to keep American consumers buying, despite being in debt over their eyeballs.
The hell with the average American's $8,000 plus in high-interest credit-card debt alone. Let's do what we can to entice them to spend more.
This while CEO pay is soaring beyond mortal belief and the average worker is worse off than they were in Nov. 2001!
Eisenger's article refers to spending "zombies" and makes comparisons to Romero's film, "Dawn of the Dead" from 30 years ago. I think a better comparison flick is 'The Matrix," in which humans exist only to feed the machine: American consumers' sole value seems to be in funding CEO pay and shareholder profits, even at the expense of their own financial well-being.
In a Tuesday article, the WSJ pointed out how the splintering of the mass audience on radio and TV is leading to the demise of the 30-second spot (The demise of the 60-second spot was years ago when it was discovered that American TV-watchers have the attention span of an over-caffeinated squirrel.).
So companies are looking at different ways to get out their message of spend, spend, spend, and the hell with tomorrow.
I am reminded of another movie, "Minority Report," in which consumers are identified by retinal scans as they walk by store windows and then are bombarded by personalized audio messages to spend, spend, spend.
Advertising and marketing folks are probably heartened by these movies. They scare the hell out of me.
Now back to my regularly scheduled job, which is -- you guessed it -- teaching advertising design. I promise to do my best to instill a sense of social responsibility along with creative thinking.
Monday, January 02, 2006
The design of blogs
I had just returned from my Christmas break from design and computing -- from doing, not from thinking about them -- when a welcome online article fell into my consciousness from UX land.
I had been thinking about how my earlier posts (some of which, ahem, are quite good) slowly fall off the first page and into the relative obscurity of the archives. Once there they become virtually invisible, even though some of the remaining posts may refer to them. No threading is available, at least not through Blogger. No way to indicate commonalities in any way, unless you do it manually and continuously. It is a bad design.
Hope springs eternal, and someone brighter has written an interesting article about what changes could be made. It can be found at LukeW Interface Designs. The article includes some good links and illustrations. Luke Wroblewski also has a number of good articles beyond this one.
More thoughts to come . . . .
I had been thinking about how my earlier posts (some of which, ahem, are quite good) slowly fall off the first page and into the relative obscurity of the archives. Once there they become virtually invisible, even though some of the remaining posts may refer to them. No threading is available, at least not through Blogger. No way to indicate commonalities in any way, unless you do it manually and continuously. It is a bad design.
Hope springs eternal, and someone brighter has written an interesting article about what changes could be made. It can be found at LukeW Interface Designs. The article includes some good links and illustrations. Luke Wroblewski also has a number of good articles beyond this one.
More thoughts to come . . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)