January 30, 2005

Website Critique Realizations

It was difficult to find a site that I read on a regular basis. There aren’t many sites that I visit and when I do, I am looking for specific information and not to (as our book put it) curl up by the fire with the computer.

So, my first realization is that I need to find some websites that I do visit on a daily basis that have content and not just items to buy.

Also, completing this critique of The Economist, I realize just how linear The Economist environment is compared to other sites like CNN or USATODAY. Perhaps this is fitting, as I would envision most economists to be linear themselves. However, I feel a little disappointed about how they use their space - The Economist website is more like the magazine and less like a website than I realized.

Posted by arosenst at 12:49 PM | Comments (3)

Website Critique

THE ECONOMIST

The Economist is a great source for news and current events. The website has a writing Style Guide that covers everything from spelling to punctuation to tone. As a resource for writers, The Economist closely follows its own advice. Its writing, easy and intuitive navigation, and the simple design all bolster the sites capabilities.

Does The Economist Holding the Reader’s Attention?
The layout and the writing on The Economist homepage does hold the reader’s attention because it is concise and scannable. 79% of online readers scan websites instead of reading them, making it essential to layer information. The use of titles, subtitles, tag lines photos, graphics, and hypertext give readers the first layer of an article’s information. Layering instantly satisfies a reader’s basic curiosity about the article and lets the reader decide if they want to continue reading for additional information.

There is a striking difference between the homepage and the site’s internal pages. Most noticeably, the internal pages of the site have limited layers. While headings and subheadings are present, they are not in hypertext. The writes merely present their article and do not create a hypertext context for their information. Furthermore, the paragraphs are long, making them difficult to scan.

Grouping is a Strength
As a web user, I scan websites instead of reading every word. The Economist’s homepage makes full use of Jakob Nielson’s list of enhancing scanability characteristics. The homepage uses highlighted key words, hypertext, various fonts and colors. The size and color of the font vary depending on their level of importance. For example, the story groupings listed under the headlining article. The article’s title is the largest in the grouping and is black, underlined and has bold text. Immediately below the title is the subtitle, also black but not bold and in a smaller font. Below that in grey is the date of the article.

The grouping found on the homepage is exemplary of scanability. However, the opposite is found on the internal pages. The article’s writing is verbose for a website. Nielson says in his “Applying Writing Guidelines to Web Pages” article that it is preferable for a writer to write comprehensively and concisely online. Additionally, the visual design of the site lacks other scanability characteristics like hypertext or bulleted lists to break up the text.

The Internal Pages
Consider a article on the internal page , only the seven paragraphs and the advertisements to the right change. The actual title of the article: A marriage made in heaven-and in the bathroom appears at the top with a compelling tag line and a picture of the logos. Each paragraph begins with a sentence that clearly introduces the next idea of the story. The article uses the inverted pyramid style, first discussing the deal and ending with the mergers effects on P&G’s rivals. While the paragraphs are long, the writing style makes for a quick read. Yet, hypertext, bulleted lists, varying colors, and typeface variations are seldom used.

Can It Be Improved? – Yes!
The Economist’s internal pages do not take full advantage of hyperlinking or other characteristics that enhance scanability. Hyperlinks related to the article, A marriage made in heaven-and in the bathroom, are found on the left side of the article, under the Related Items box. In this box are related items from The Economist, relevant websites, and other categorical Global Agenda articles. The Relates Items box is located after the second paragraph and lines up with the first line of the third paragraph. Although this box helps to visually breakup the text, it is a poor use of space. Including hypertext, bulleted lists, vibrant colors, and variations of typeface within articles would be an improvement.

Another way The Economist site could take full advantage of the available technology would be to include audio, video, and flash communications as well as forums for online discussions and chats or comments. The Diversions category lets readers take quizzes to test their knowledge on various subjects, but this is the only interactive component of the site.

Why We Like The Economist
The content and layout of The Economist continue to appeal to readers. While the content is sometimes complex, the visual elements are neither flashy nor sexy, but instead simplistic. The lines are clean and the categories have clear labels. The article groupings give a brief overview of current events in a concise and scannable manner. Additionally, the colors, bolding, underlining, and font size variations all clearly communicate the purpose of the article.

The Economist website is linear when compared to other sites like CNN or USATODAY, which uses hypertext throughout the site incorporating multiple layers of information. The Economist’s internal pages are more like the magazine and less like a website, while the homepage seems to utilize as few technological advances (audio, video, and flash movies) as possible. However, I do not believe that the authors and designers of The Economist neglect these scannable characteristics, but instead choose not to incorporate them. We like The Economist website because it uses simplistic methods to communication complex issues.

Posted by arosenst at 12:32 PM | Comments (2)