References: <960906074623_516969008@emout13.mail.aol.com> <3230AA30.4DA0@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-online-newspapers@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Roberto Quezada wrote:
> 
> Are we among friends here? Can we talk?
Yes, you are among friends.  This is not a list that sends flames except
one I misguided at someone a few months ago. 
> I don't mean to be offensive to the American, but in the spirit of
> constructive criticism, I find it very tedious to read it, especially
> when my only option seems to be to scroll.  Was I looking at a Lynx
> version or am I right in saying that all I got was pages and pages
> (screens and screens) of text with very little in the way of layout and
> no graphics?  Excuse me if I'm incorrect, and please, correct me.
What I am trying to find out is what research has been done to determine
that people do not like to scroll.  Is it necessary to provide pages
online of less than 500 words per page with graphics?  People buy the
New York Times, for example,  even though a page one story goes to page
B13.  That violates every theory of reader use.  Nevertheless, the Times
does it all the time.  USA Today does few, if any, jumps.   Which paper
provides more information to readers?  I do not know.  Most newspapers
are following the USA Today model, and newspaper readership is at its
lowest point in recent history.  
> And scrolling is not the only way to read a paper, I'm sure you know
> that hyperlinks are an effective way to get around and read also.  I get
> the feeling that most people on the internet get tired after two screens
> of data and then are looking for a link to push.  AR is too much like a
> newspaper without the comforts of holding one in my hands and being able
> to move over the couch or breakfast table when I feel like it.
Please provide the data that prove that hyperlinks are the best way to
get information.  Is it conventional wisdom because we all like it, or
is there more than anecdotal proof that that's what the reader/viewer
wants?  Even so, there is a belief that we in the media have created
people with the attention span of gnats.  Should we continue that in
digital journalism? 
I do not know the answers to the questions I pose.   Looking for details
and hard evidence that our collective fingers in the wind are accurate. 
Cheers.

-- 
Christopher Harper				
Associate Professor
New York University
Department of Journalism
212-998-3846	
	
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there."
  - Will Rogers

From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Fri Sep  6 21:53:11 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08218 ; for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 21:53:11 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA07245 for online-news-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:12:07 -0600
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA07240 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:12:02 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id QAA15644; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:59:05 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from netcom4.netcom.com by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id QAA29039; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:59:02 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from joeshea@localhost) by netcom4.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
	id PAA17355; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:59:00 -0700