Comments on: CNN understands how users read text better than print people do http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2007/08/30/cnn-understands-how-users-read-better-than-print-people/ Thoughts from a technologist and journalist Wed, 09 May 2012 14:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: pat http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2007/08/30/cnn-understands-how-users-read-better-than-print-people/comment-page-1/#comment-637 pat Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:49:37 +0000 http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=53#comment-637 Marc, I totally agree with you. I work for a newspaper, and I know exactly how hard it is to institute a simple change like this. At my paper this simple change would be virtually impossible to implement, because of our publishing system and work flow. The No. 1 problem is that most newspapers have invested heavily in systems that are print focused (Team Base, Hermes, some sort of Quark or InDesign system, etc). Those systems put content very poorly onto the Web, and often don't give the flexibility to create Web centric content. Until that that changes, most newspapers will put out incredibly print-centric Web sites, and will have no one but themselves to blame when they are getting killed on the Web. CNN can easily get around this problem because its written content is intended for the Web first. So, there engine for displaying written content is based around a Web model. I disagree that the changes can not happen. I know they won't, but where there is a will, there is a way. At small papers like the Lawrence Journal World, they have been able to do great things with their Web product. It's all of matter of understanding that the Web is your future. Most papers simply don't get that one fundamental truth. Marc,

I totally agree with you. I work for a newspaper, and I know exactly how hard it is to institute a simple change like this. At my paper this simple change would be virtually impossible to implement, because of our publishing system and work flow.

The No. 1 problem is that most newspapers have invested heavily in systems that are print focused (Team Base, Hermes, some sort of Quark or InDesign system, etc). Those systems put content very poorly onto the Web, and often don’t give the flexibility to create Web centric content. Until that that changes, most newspapers will put out incredibly print-centric Web sites, and will have no one but themselves to blame when they are getting killed on the Web.

CNN can easily get around this problem because its written content is intended for the Web first. So, there engine for displaying written content is based around a Web model.

I disagree that the changes can not happen. I know they won’t, but where there is a will, there is a way. At small papers like the Lawrence Journal World, they have been able to do great things with their Web product. It’s all of matter of understanding that the Web is your future.

Most papers simply don’t get that one fundamental truth.

]]> By: CNN Bulletpoints « Short Stories http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2007/08/30/cnn-understands-how-users-read-better-than-print-people/comment-page-1/#comment-632 CNN Bulletpoints « Short Stories Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:44:55 +0000 http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=53#comment-632 [...] Ik had het ook al opgemerkt, CNN maakt handig gebruik van bulletpoints. Korte zinnen  op het scherm  een duidelijke [...] [...] Ik had het ook al opgemerkt, CNN maakt handig gebruik van bulletpoints. Korte zinnen  op het scherm  een duidelijke [...]

]]> By: Marc Matteo http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2007/08/30/cnn-understands-how-users-read-better-than-print-people/comment-page-1/#comment-627 Marc Matteo Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:19:05 +0000 http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=53#comment-627 Except in my newsroom there's *immense* pushback on anything that adds minutes to "the workflow". Nor, frankly, is there a way in the multi-kazillion-dollar print publishing system to add this information so that would push it down from the writer/editor level to the "web uploader" level and those guys are under-paid, over-worked and didn't write the story in the first place, and now they'll have to *read* each story... and now we're adding even MORE time to "the workflow". I don't deny it's a good idea, I'm illustrating a larger problem. Most newspapers are so entrenched in their ways, both operationally and _financially_ that a lot of the changes that we advocate simply can not happen. Other companies, the Googles and the Craig's Lists, don't have this problem. Except in my newsroom there’s *immense* pushback on anything that adds minutes to “the workflow”. Nor, frankly, is there a way in the multi-kazillion-dollar print publishing system to add this information so that would push it down from the writer/editor level to the “web uploader” level and those guys are under-paid, over-worked and didn’t write the story in the first place, and now they’ll have to *read* each story… and now we’re adding even MORE time to “the workflow”.

I don’t deny it’s a good idea, I’m illustrating a larger problem. Most newspapers are so entrenched in their ways, both operationally and _financially_ that a lot of the changes that we advocate simply can not happen.

Other companies, the Googles and the Craig’s Lists, don’t have this problem.

]]>