Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
In-Reply-To: 
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
List-Unsubscribe: 
Reply-To: "Vin Crosbie" 
Precedence: bulk
Status: O
X-Status: 

-----------> This message was posted to the ONLINE-NEWS list. <-----------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakob Nielsen [mailto:jakob@useit.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 11:54 AM
> Exactctly! Each page needs to be a focused piece that links to other pages
> with additional info on yet more focused topics. A single flow should not
> be broken up into pages since that leads to page-turning whih is
> slower and
> more unpleasant than simple scrolling. The only rationale I have heard for
> splitting up a story over multiple pages is that it provides for more page
> views and thus has room for more advertising banners.

Reading a master like Jakob state that catalyzes me to point out two
remarkable statements from the Newspaper Association of America's Digital
Edge website this month. Both come from an individual on the 'Asks The
Experts' panel at the NAA's Connections '98 Conference last month in Florida
. (Indeed, The NAA
thought one of these statements remarkable enough to quote on the transition
page of the Digital Edge's website. .)

Because both statements were made by the same individual, I've been
reluctant to point these out lest someone think I'm making an ad hominem
attack. I am not. I'm simply intrigued by the thinking behind these
statements. (And to keep the focus on the statements, not individual, I've
replaced his name with 'X' and his online newspaper as 'Y' in the quotes
below).

Here is the second of the two statements. It came after another panelist
suggested that content organization should be based upon what users like:

>Content organization can also backfire, [X] stated that easier
>navigation is not always good. He reflected on how [Y].com was
>redesigned to be more efficient, but the navigation efficiency
>actually reduced the number of page views on the site.

Is it better to let users dig?

And, finally, the first quote, which the Digital Edge prominently features:
>"My principle mission is to preserve and protect the newspaper
>for as long as I can," [X} said. He added, "Anytime I see bad
>news about the Internet, or things that aren't working on the
>Internet, that's actually good news for me."

Interesting quotes from the chief of New Media at a major metropolitan
newspaper that operates regional Internet content services for more than
just its own publication.

Is such thinking -- 1) design for pageviews, not users, and 2) what is bad
for the Internet is good for us -- actually pervasive in the online
publishing industry? And won't it cause online traffic to route elsewhere?

Vin Crosbie


->  ONLINE-NEWS uses Lyris mailing list software. http://www.lyris.com  <-
-> Change your list settings:  http://www.planetarynews.com/online-news <-
->   Online-News is archived: http://www.planetarynews.com/on-archive   <-
You are subscribed to online-news as: [rballard@access.digex.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this msg to leave-online-news-20155U@clio.lyris.net
SPONSOR: Knight Ridder Real Cities - http://www.realcities.com


From bounce-online-news-20155@clio.lyris.net Thu Jul 16 13:41:38 1998
>From bounce-online-news-20155@clio.lyris.net  Thu Jul 16 13:41:38 1998
Received: from clio.lyris.net (clio.lyris.net [207.90.155.3])
	by pony-2.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA19430
	for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:41:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: