I'm doing this while the rest of you are watching the Super Bowl. I'm also very tired, so please bare with me if this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
"Writing for a Web Audience" by Constance J. Peterson
First off I want to say that I found it really interesting that almost everybody scans while reading online. I thought it was just me. And, I would have never imagined that people actually work their websites around this. I also didn't realize that there was so much to fixing a website for scanners (which is what this whole paper is about in case you haven't read it).
Another thing I found interesting just by reading the first page was the fact that people pay more attention to text rather than graphics. I thought the whole idea of graphics was to catch the attention of the reader. So my question to that is, what is the point of graphics then? So maybe Peterson needs to rethink this.
Alright, lets get into these 10 steps:
1. Punch up headlines: I agree that web visitors scan for headlines first, because there is no point in reading everything if you only need a small portion of it. The comment I didn't agree with in this section was that you shouldn't make headlines funny, cute, or silly. I tghink it completely depends on what you are writing about and who the audiance is. I always like papers (and of course headlines) that have something funny thrown in there. I think as long as it is relevant it doesn't really matter... but that is just me. I really liked the fact that the author includes HTML codes for the examples, such as <> for the first heading size. I thought that was a really good idea, not to mention very helpful.
2. Emphasize keywords: I wouldn't have thought about doing this either, but I really think it is a great idea. It draws the reader to what is important in whatever it is that they are reading. I also thought it was a good idea that the author included possible mistakes that someone may make while doing this (making the emphasis look like a regular hypertext link).
3. Harness the power of links: I have made websites before (lame ones) and I never once made a list. I guess I know why my sites have been so lame... I don't think about my audiance and their scanning. But this is also a really great idea. I love how the author explains exactly how to do this and once again talks about possible mistakes (full sentences or paragraphs).
4. Create meaningful captions: This brings me back to my graphics question, what is the point if people don't really look at them? I guess writing a caption would bring more attention and understanding to them. At least that may be the point Peterson is trying to get across. I don't know, I just think it is kind of contradicting (am I making sense? I'm getting more tired).
5. Simplify for understanding: I completely and totally agree with this. I think more people need to do this when writing. Giving readers less to read makes them happy, it is true. The smaller and simpler the words the better. No puns, no metaphors. This is my favorite part.
6. Invert the pyramid: I think I write like this any way. I was taught to write like that any way. Conclusion first, summarize points, supportive information, and background information. MOve the background information in between summarize points and supportive information and you have how I right. I don't think this is too different from how most people write, but it is still a good idea.
7. Write one idea per paragraph: I think this is also pretty well known as being correct. I know I have problems sometimes with that, but it isnt some new idea. I thik Peterson was struggling for ideas at this point.
8. Make each page stand alone: I do think this is a really good idea. You never know what page a reader will eneter your site at and because of this you need to make it stand on its own. I know this is one thing I have done for the websites I have made. So, at least they weren't completely lame.
9. Link wisely: I really liked the idea of the mouse-over text for glossary items. I think this is much better than hypertext links. I know I hate going to other sites to get what the first site should have explained by itself. It annoys me. So, I usually miss a lot by not clicking the links.
10. Be current, accurate, and credible: I think everyone probably agrees with this. I do think there is some really great old information out there, but for the most part people want what is new. Obviously it is important to be accurate and credible too otherwise no one would want to read what you have to say.
Ok, now that I have typed more than I meant to I'm going to go do the rest of my homework so I can fall asleep. Goodnight.
Jessica
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The idea of the inverted pyramid interested me as well. This is a technique that has been used (notice i didn't say utilized) by journalists since the
United States Civil War. Although in those days it was a matter of time rather than impatience, it makes sense to push this onto the Web.
I found it interesting that the author had the same ideas as Killian, but for different reasons. Petersen seemed to lump everyone into the same group of "scanners," rather than divide them as Killian did.
The inverted pyramid is obviously an oft discussed feature of web-site communication. Chip Scalan talked too about the inverted pyramid and its importance in web writing.
I have to agree and further emphasize its importance especially on the internet, where bits of information rule.
Also to connect to McCloud's idea of utilizing links and captions, I believe that the use of each of these are extremely important for maintaining the interest of the audience in the subject.
I like Peterson, way more than Killian. She seems to be about effective rhetorical design, whereas Killian seems sort of contemptuous of the Web. That's what I got, anyway, from "Computers rev us up and dumb us down, leaving us in no frame of mind for logical thought or analysis." (Notice that I don't include a page number since anyone who wants to check the accuracy of the quote can just open the page and scan. This, I think, is one thing Porter means about technology shaping writing.)
I'm not sure about the whole inverted pyramid thing. I see her point for Web writing, but when I write essays I feel disoriented if I don't give a significant amount of background. In academic writing, I'm building on a context of already existing thought. If I don't provide that, the reader might not understand my perspective, or worse, think I'm taking credit for a particular idea without acknowledging where it came from.
I could be somewhat old-fashioned in my approach but I was always taught that the conclusion is positioned near the end after evidence has been shown (it seems to present the argument with greater validity). However I guess the preachers of this sort of school of thought didn't have modern issues, non-linearity, and information literacy to take into account. The inverted pyramid scheme would follow McCloud's suggestion #9, "Don't make 'em hunt and peck".
Post a Comment