I found this article extremely interesting and rather educating. Through reading this article I was able to learn of the expectations people had for the web over 10 years ago in comparison to what the web has on offer now.
Nora has gathered much evidence supporting the many expectations we have lived up to and the many that we haven’t. Although I do feel that Nora may have been slightly to vague in her discussions as many of the examples she gave were American sites, whilst in comparison I believe that many English sites are very different and in some senses do exceed the expectations that were suggested all those years ago.
In Nora’s hyper-linking section she talks of a recent check of the New York Times online, showing no stories with external links-most of which required a payment of $2.95 in order to read. This is not the case for many English sites, which I think use hyper-linking to a great extent and in my eyes use it well, many of them do not have to be paid for my the reader as Nora suggests.
However, I do agree with the fact that communication between reporter and reader is not always a two-way communication as was once hoped. This is mainly due to the fact as Nora rightly states 'some reporters find it a potential time suck.'
Nora is right in saying that people now often result to becoming part of a forum to get the personal discussion and communication they long for. This of course shows a new idea that has been introduced that was not expected or thought of ten years ago and in some sense is better than the two way communication that was once expected.
Overall, I do agree to a certain extent with what Nora is suggesting within this article. She has brought to light the fact that although the web may not have reached its full potential regarding what was expected 10 years ago, it has acknowledged the expectations and that most of them do exist just not to the level that was expected.
Having read this article I have come to the conclusion that many news companies do not take the web as seriously or see it as important as their print publication. I think that when or 'if ' these news companies do come to realise that the internet is an extremely powerful and everlasting way of providing depth and scope in many of their stories, and that many people do infact long for this informaion, then maybe all that was expected of the web would in fact come into action today.
Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Monday, 24 September 2007
Analysing an on-line feature
The on-line feature I choose to analyse is: An Observer magazine story about Grazia Magazine
When I first opened the page and saw the article I initially thought that this particular piece looked rather dull.
It has a basic layout with the feature piece in the centre and a variety of links on the left hand side.
There is no evidence of any form of multi-media such as engaging pictures or an enticing layout, filled with wonderful, bright colours. Instead everything just appears to be extremely basic. One could argue that this is because this is the conventional layout, (i.e.: colour scheme etc) that The Observer use, which is of course the site that this feature piece was written for.
This of course lends me to believe that neither this particular feature piece or web site in general do not use the FULL potentials provided by the web. Although, the page does take some advantage of the potential provided, such as the use of links, which allows for easy navigation around the page, taking you to ‘Recent articles’ found in the magazine (which I must say was a plus), the overall layout of the main page in which the piece was featured failed to provide a sense of excitement, which I feel is a major advantage that the web can provide and a print publication cant.
There was no use of rollovers, no use of images on the main page where the piece was featured or on any of the pages you were navigated to via the links. Although there was an advert, which was centred in the middle of the feature it had no relevance to the feature itself, which again I feel is a waste of a potential that could have been used to help add to the layout of the feature.
Focusing more on the feature piece itself I believe that it shows some evidence of the standard forms and practices of print and some unique standard and practices of its own (the web). The feature piece is detailed and lengthy, it is written in continuous prose, which I believe are the standard forms and practices of print. Similar to some print features, this feature takes on a conversational tone, successfully managing to engage the reader with writing techniques such as rhetorical questions, direct speech etc.
However, in comparison to these standard forms and practices of print, the feature piece carries the conversational tone throughout the entire feature, whereas I feel most print publications loose the conversational tone and
slowly adopt a more statistical and formal tone.
I do think that in some senses this particular feature piece adds something new that is not yet used in a print publication. Unlike a print feature which has to adopt a similar tone to the one carried throughout the particular magazine it is featured in, the feature I analysed along with other on-line features are able to adopt its very own tone and can continue this particular tone for as long as they like. By having links the feature piece is also able to set out its ideas in a systematic way without having to cram it all into the one feature piece, which is typical of a magazine feature.
I therefore again do not think that on-line features, (this on-line feature in particular) are reproducing what’s in print. On-line features can be much longer more detailed and less conventional, there is no essential word limit
and so therefore no information has to ever be sacrificed.
Overall, although I may have not found the layout chosen for this particular piece very mind stimulation, nor attractive I did find the feature extremely engaging along with the extended feature found in the links provided.
When I first opened the page and saw the article I initially thought that this particular piece looked rather dull.
It has a basic layout with the feature piece in the centre and a variety of links on the left hand side.
There is no evidence of any form of multi-media such as engaging pictures or an enticing layout, filled with wonderful, bright colours. Instead everything just appears to be extremely basic. One could argue that this is because this is the conventional layout, (i.e.: colour scheme etc) that The Observer use, which is of course the site that this feature piece was written for.
This of course lends me to believe that neither this particular feature piece or web site in general do not use the FULL potentials provided by the web. Although, the page does take some advantage of the potential provided, such as the use of links, which allows for easy navigation around the page, taking you to ‘Recent articles’ found in the magazine (which I must say was a plus), the overall layout of the main page in which the piece was featured failed to provide a sense of excitement, which I feel is a major advantage that the web can provide and a print publication cant.
There was no use of rollovers, no use of images on the main page where the piece was featured or on any of the pages you were navigated to via the links. Although there was an advert, which was centred in the middle of the feature it had no relevance to the feature itself, which again I feel is a waste of a potential that could have been used to help add to the layout of the feature.
Focusing more on the feature piece itself I believe that it shows some evidence of the standard forms and practices of print and some unique standard and practices of its own (the web). The feature piece is detailed and lengthy, it is written in continuous prose, which I believe are the standard forms and practices of print. Similar to some print features, this feature takes on a conversational tone, successfully managing to engage the reader with writing techniques such as rhetorical questions, direct speech etc.
However, in comparison to these standard forms and practices of print, the feature piece carries the conversational tone throughout the entire feature, whereas I feel most print publications loose the conversational tone and
slowly adopt a more statistical and formal tone.
I do think that in some senses this particular feature piece adds something new that is not yet used in a print publication. Unlike a print feature which has to adopt a similar tone to the one carried throughout the particular magazine it is featured in, the feature I analysed along with other on-line features are able to adopt its very own tone and can continue this particular tone for as long as they like. By having links the feature piece is also able to set out its ideas in a systematic way without having to cram it all into the one feature piece, which is typical of a magazine feature.
I therefore again do not think that on-line features, (this on-line feature in particular) are reproducing what’s in print. On-line features can be much longer more detailed and less conventional, there is no essential word limit
and so therefore no information has to ever be sacrificed.
Overall, although I may have not found the layout chosen for this particular piece very mind stimulation, nor attractive I did find the feature extremely engaging along with the extended feature found in the links provided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
