"Writing Style for Print v. Web" and "Why Linearity is Not The Issue" offer two competing views of the difference between print and web writing. Which view do you most agree? What are the features of that view? And why does it resonate with you?
Web article headline guidelines: - Information-carrying content - Common key words - Must provoke readers to click the link; headline has an “information scent”
Print publications contain linear content, consumed in a relaxed situation. Web articles are read quickly, satisfying a solution. “Web users want actionable content.” Online texts are user-driven because the articles are based on the needs of the web search. Furhtermore, web users read with a goal and as a result they piece information together, making content reader-driven. Also, Nieslon believes that the Web is not appropriate for learning unless a framework of information on the subject is already in place.
“Why Linearity is not the Issue”
“The new work of composing, like the old work of composing, is about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear. More than that, the new work of composing is about responsibility: understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its limits.”
Part of the power of comics (and other common texts) relies on linearity, because the texts in displayed in a sequence, starting at one point and ending at another. Although this is true, readers often do not follow that sequence. Instead, “they engage in the text as they please.”
Information and meaning differs based on what media is used for the text. One can understand a new type of text based on known text types composed in familiar media. “And it isn’t the hyperlink or the audio clip that allows it to work; the Olive Project works because it draws upon our existing knowledge of technologies, genre conventions, and storytelling.”
Writers should not focus on the linearity of their work but rather the appropriate response to the rhetorical situation.
Response: I agree most with the viewpoint of “Writing Style for Print vs. Web.” As I read the article, I understood and agreed with Nielson’s concepts. Print and Web are two different media and a writer must understand the restrictions and affordances of each space. Likewise, print media is author-driven and Web media is reader-driven. It makes sense because web searches are based on users’ desire for an immediate response, so therefore, users piece together information in different articles for their information. This is unlike print media, which slow the amount of information, resulting in a more relaxed reader that appreciates the anecdotes and detail provided by the author.
I agree most with Nielsen’s view in Writing Style for Print vs. Web. Nielsen’s view basically comes down to control. Control that is ultimately comes from the reader or the writer and the power of control is determined based on whether the information is in print or online. In written text, the writer has the control because the information is constricted and the reader must trust that what is there is all accurate, However, in hyperlink text, the reader “constructs their own experience” and therefore determines what they want to read, how much they want to read, and can go through multiple windows to get the information. Nielsen separates this control by many segments including linear vs. non-linear, author-driven vs., reader-driven, storytelling vs. ruthless pursuit of actionable content, anecdotal examples vs. comprehensive data, and sentence vs. fragments. All of these components differentiate the pros and cons of the style used for writing on print vs. inline. This view resonates with me more because through my internship this past semester at a Public Relations firm I have seen how truly impactful the choice of print vs. the web can determine the success of the content. It is truly an art to understand what you think readers will most appreciate and give the desired reaction.
The view that I agree with most is the “Writing Style for Print vs. Web” by Jakob Nielsen. The features of this view had to do with a couple of different topics. He broke down the differences of writing in print vs. the web with word choice, syntax and linearity to name a few. Nielsen’s work is something that resonates more with me because what he is saying with the different type of writing styles for different mediums is relating to my own life. I have written in both print and online mediums for the magazines that I am apart of and I can see exactly what Nielsen is explaining. When I edit my articles for the online publication with my editor, he has trained me to be more short and to the point. Long drawn out sentences is something that he urges me to change. Even heavy sentences that sound way too formal are not really ideal for the medium that we are publishing in. Our readers want quick, “comprehensive coverage” and “specific” content like Nielsen states. Another important and very true thing is how readers can make their way through a piece on either the print or the web. With print, the author has much more control on when the reader will be getting the information—it is read in a linear fashion. However on the web, the reader can click around. It is even a requirement with my editor that I include three hyperlinks to other articles on the site within each of the articles I write. Text on the web is hyperlink text. Nielsen says, “In non-linear hypertext, the rules reverse.” Talking about how the author wants the user to “construct their own experience.” Overall, I get what Nielsen is saying because I can that I have been in either position and as a writer in both online and print text; my style does need to change.
"Writing Style For Print Vs Web" by Jakob Nielsen offers a different perspective from "Why Linearity Is Not The Issue" by Diana George, Dan Lawson, and Tim Lockridge. The second piece does discuss linearity as well as mode, and even quotes Gunther Kress saying "Not everything can be realized in every mode with equal facility". However, I preferred the ideas presented in Nielsen's piece.
He presents the differences in print publications and web media in a very easy-to-understand way, and relates each point to every day examples that the reader can agree with. He explains that the very first difference in the two is the way that the articles are presented. Headlines are different than link titles, as a print text reader is looking for an author-driven story, whereas a web surfer is looking for very specific content tailored to their needs, or "actionable" content. Another main difference is in the way that the experience is constructed - the reader constructs the web experience, while the author constructs the print experience.
I can personally relate to this, as oftentimes web articles are searched for and scanned for information that the reader needs. I do this myself whenever I'm looking for things on the internet. If I need specific information, I can search keywords. Print text does not rely on keywords or readers that are searching for specific information. I find that if I'm writing something that is to be printed, I'm more likely to tell a story with embellishments and "extras". When I'm typing up something for web presentation I am more likely to be short, sweet, and to the point for maximum views.
After reading both of the arguments presented in Writing Style for Print vs. Web and The New Work of Composing, I felt myself leaning in agreement more towards Jakob Neilson. He makes several great cases in points as to why writing for print and writing for the web must be inherently different. A printed affords for greater details, more divulged content, and allowance of an overarching story to be conceived. The web must act in complete juxtaposition. The content should be fragmented, it needs to be concise and to the point, and over divulgence in detailed storytelling needs to avoided. Each of these styles, he states serves a purpose. The print is very author-driven, meaning the reader is allowing the author to shape their subjective viewpoint through the use of writing techniques like anecdotes, examples, etc. The web, in opposition, is reader-driven. The content must be able to quickly accommodate the readers’ needs in only a few seconds (typically). I agree with this two-fold way of analyzing print and digital texts, because it plays off of the idea of what each form should provide to the reader. The web is meant to provide the reader with answers. What Neilson calls “filler material” which is important in creating the storyline on a printed text is the downfall in texts online. While the print can provide much more scenic driven details, the web allows for far more immediacy. I think Neilson’s argument resonate with me, because I believe that text should always be conscious of the intentionality of the readers. Why would someone choose a printed text over a digital and vice-versa? Each of these modes relies on a different set of standards that conform to readers’ intention for usage. I think writing styles are more focused on how a text is should be provided to the reader, in order to capture their attention and then the ‘what is being told in the text’ becomes the secondary concern.
“Writing Style for Print vs. Web” offers a view of online writing that I can agree with. This view considers the web an active medium where users are engaged in what they are seeing. Nielsen’s view takes into account that when people are using the web, they are actively scrolling through pages or looking for information. Most things that a viewer quickly deems as irrelevant will be overlooked while scrolling. Nielsen’s view also features the importance of the scrolling on how people will view a web page. Users generally read the first few words on the left of the page when searching a site. Any titles or subtitles that fail to convey vital information in this left-most orientation will often be ignored. Nielsen also makes the important point of web content needing to be brief. The internet is used for convenience purposes, it’s easy to search something and find a quick answer or source. If there is too much content to sift through, this almost defeats the web’s purpose of convenience. Nielsen also explained that briefness includes sentence fragments being more effective (for online) than complete sentences. This would allow somebody to quickly determine the main point of an article and then actually read it if they found the ‘quick version’ interesting. Nielsen’s view resonated with me the most because his main point was about how imperative it is to be concise online. I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard similar advice and found it to be true as I read and search for things online myself.
I lean towards agreeing with George, Lawson, and Lockridge’s article rather than Nielsen’s article. Neilsen homogenizes online consumers, and his presumptuous ideas about what these consumers want are rooted in opinions more than in facts. For example, Neilsen writes, “In print, you can spice up linear narrative with anecdotes and individual examples that support a storytelling approach to exposition. On the Web, such content often feels like filler.” This is merely an opinion and discredits the web as a medium capable of linear storytelling. What about the many publications that use the web as a way to reach more readers than they could through print? Neilsen presumes that readers never read digital text without expecting to encounter certain genres like short stories, narrative essays, and other prose-heavy genres whose details Neilsen would consider “froufrou.”
George, Lawson, and Lockridge’s article contradicts Neilsen’s reductive approach and puts the power back in the hands of writers rather than making creators pander to consumers. “The “new work of composition and production,” then, is far more complex than knowing how to handle the latest digital technology. The new work of composing, like the old work of composing, is about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear. (George, Lawson, and Lockridge 4). Notice the repetitive use of “you” as the subject in this quote. They place the writer in the pilot seat. The creator is the one in charge of how texts are presented rather than the creator having to “support the user’s personal story” as Neilsen suggests. George, Lawson and Lockridge advocate “understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its limits” which puts a focus more on the affordances of digital media rather than the consumers. They encourage an understanding of digital media’s various forms so that writers can present their message in the strongest way possible. This is more compelling than Neilsen’s view because Neilsen is often just listing things one must cut or rearrange. He dictates what to do rather than encouraging a holistic understanding of digital media.
Before even addressing why I agree significantly more with "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" I think it's important to say why I disagree so strongly with "Writing Style for Print v Web." Jakob Nielsen makes a significant number of claims in his piece that generally take the form of "Print is [this]. Web is [this]." And I think that by making these statements, or classifying linear media as print and tv when his article in constructed in an entirely linear fashion limits his arguments and makes them impossible to agree with.
"Why Linearity is Not the Issue," however, discusses many different aspects of texts such as genre conventions, composition, reader experience, and (of course) linearity. It takes the approach that texts are neither black or white but that they are grey. We can combine a linear and hypertextual method in the same text. Web texts can be (and often are) linear and that's alright because linearity is most effective for their particular rhetorical situations. I think this is summed up perfectly in the quote: "Rather, relevance is (as it has always been) determined by using the most appropriate medium and genre in the most appropriate manner available given a contingent audience, purpose, and rhetorical situation."
Prior to reading this I would have jumped at this "web is hyper textual" idea that Nielsen provides, but it's not at all true. I'm composing a linear text because it's most effective for the assignment. This entire idea resonates with me heavily because it shows: "The “new work of composition and production,” then, is far more complex than knowing how to handle the latest digital technology." We can see this in producing every digital text we make. Through ideas we learned in rhetoric, our day to day interactions and compositions with technology, and our studying and close analyzation of texts we know that there is significantly more than linearity versus hypertextuality and one medium versus another. We are learning to compose in conjunction with genre conventions as well as in spite of them and so while linearity is a topic, I agree that it is not the issue. The following quote, while at the beginning of the reading, sum up this idea perfectly:
"In other words, the only difference is in how we see it or in what we might expect from a text set up as a series of stanzas in a narrow column with lots of white space all around. Layout. Design. Genre expectation. Habit."
We take so much into consideration when composing/designing/viewing/etc.
"Writing Style for Print v. Web" by Jakob Nielson and "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" by Diana George, Dan Lawson, and Tim Lockridge offer somewhat, though not drastically different views of the differences between online and print texts. Nielson takes the less enthusiastic view of web writing. Although he finds the web useful for uncovering individual facts, he doesn't believe it to be an ideal tool for serious learning. The authors of "Why Linearity is Not the Issue," on the other hand, see the web as an equally valuable medium, although they posit that not all media are equally suited to all types of texts. They also argue that web pages have the ability to limit reader's access to information - not only to increase it.
While both articles have interesting points, I find myself gravitating towards Nielson's view because I find that his points are generally, though not always true. While it is possible to look at the web with the intention of serious learning, it certainly happens less often. As humans, we are easily distractible, and when a medium offers us the ability to customize our leaning experience, gathering bits and pieces of information as we choose while tuning others out, we will most often take advantage of it - and when we so often elect to navigate the web in this manner, sites will tend to be designed with our preference in mind.
It is true that many sites do restrict the reader's access to the information, such as "The Olive Project: an oral composition in multiple modes," an example site given in the other article. However, any website designed in a non-linear manner creates omissions as well; even if readers must click on certain items to reach information, they are still free to choose only those ones that happen to capture their interest. In a linear print text, readers are generally encouraged to experience the information in a particular order, from beginning to end. The only way that an online text can achieve exactly the same effect is by copying the linear format of a print text.
Just as "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" suggests that not all media are equally suited to all types of texts, I think that not all learning styles are equally suited to all kinds of texts. There is nothing wrong with using the web; for some types of learning it can be a valuable tool, while in other learning situations it will be less productive.
I agree with the view of “Writing Style for Print v. Web”. In the article, Jakob Nielsen summarizes the difference between Web and television as active vs passive. I agree that users of the Web are actively engaged and searching for something. However, while watching television, viewers are relaxing and looking for entertainment. Nielsen uses the example of The New York Times article “Coping With the Tall Traveler’s Curse.” The same article would not be received well on the Web because it “lacked keywords, was not specific and had no information-carrying content.” I agree that users of the Web are most likely searching for best deals not just articles about tall travelers. The Web also provides more specific content than print. Users can search for the exact thing they are looking for. I also agree with Nielsen’s point that print takes on a storytelling approach. Information on the Web is much more brief because users “read only 18% of added verbiage.” The users also choose what they want to read on the Web. Nielsen makes a point that users visit a website for a purpose and achieve this purpose despite distractions. Although George, Lawson and Lockridge make good points, their article did not resonate as well with me. I agree that people seek different things online and in print. Writing online is going to be different because users already know what they want. Therefore, writing tends to be shorter and to the point. Writing in print is written more for entertainment. While online, I constantly jump from page to page looking for the most interesting articles. However if I am reading a newspaper or magazine, I read for leisure.
I agree more with Neilsen’s view. This is mostly so because he presents his argument in the format in which he believes web users read. He is concise in explanation and his work contains hyperlinks that could be clicked on if the reader chose to do so. A reader can simply read his main page and get the point however without reading the extra links, which emphasis his point of people customizing their online experience. Neilsen also mentions that a linear approach is most beneficial when in print when education is the purpose of the reading. With the other article it takes into account the individual, when there is more to be understood when focusing on the whole of readers. When looking at readers as a whole we see, like Neilsen says, that an audience only reads certain parts, only reads about 18% of what is actually on the screen. What needs to be understood is that there are two very different methods to reading, both can be simply stated as how we read print and how we read on the web. Print is deemed more scholarly while the web offers more to do with interpersonal connections that are more casual and not necessarily necessary. We read deeper with print, but we can take in more on the web
I mostly agree with Writing Style for Print vs. the Web. What I mostly agree with is that titles have more importance when it comes to the web. Aside from titles, word choice in general is more important. The author states that in a writing style for print, the writer is capable of being more descriptive and contains extras such as "interesting anecdotes." Also, the web is more known for presenting its readers with straight to the point, valuable information. It is more "specific" than what is presented in print content. I also agree with the Nielsen, that linear media is primarily for those who want the writer to create an experience. The author describes this type of audience as the "selfish reader." All the differences between print and media writing can be seen on a daily basis and how it is presented for different audiences. I strongly agree that those selfish readers depend on the web rather than any type of printed text. I agree with what Nielsen states because I am able to consider my own writing when I think of what he is presenting. I sometimes think that what is being written isn't as important as how I am able to captivate my audience online. When it is a print text, I tend to care more and put more examples, images, and pay more attention to the layout that will be presented. This is why the web and text should both be incorporated in learning situations. Different students/audiences approach subjects in different ways and they should be able to have the means that best suit them.
I agree most with George, Lawson, and Lockridge’s article – finding Nielsen’s approach to covering the difference between print and web to be reductive. He boils down each medium to a blanket phrase. In his view, print is “linear, author-driven, storytelling, full of complete sentences”, while the web is “non-linear, reader-driven, contains actionable content, and is full of fragmented sentences.” This is an oversimplification that I don’t entirely agree with. I think there is a place for linearity on the web (and it’s certainly possible for an author to create such an experience), and therefore it can contain a comparable level of passivity.
“Why Linearity is Not The Issue”, however, acknowledges more of the nuances of both the web and print, and provides a more comprehensive analysis of issues of composition, reader experience, and linearity in print and web content. While Nielsen gives strict guidelines on composition, George, Lawson, and Lockridge equip the reader with tools of understanding how to make compositional choices. They state that composing is “about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear” (26). While Nielsen holds the belief that compositional choices are beholden to the perceived expectations of the reader, George, Lawson, and Lockridge broaden this by stating that “composing is about responsibility: understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its contingent audience, purpose, and rhetorical situation” (26). “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” also counters Nielsen’s simplification of web and print – into oppositional non-linear and linear mediums -- with a statement that also serves as a summary of the main point of the article: “Even the most traditional and linear texts are subject to the non-linear movements of readers” (13). In other words, linearity is not the issue.
I agree with Neilsen’s viewpoint in "Writing Style for Print v. Web." While “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” focuses on how both print and web writing are utilized for various purposes, audiences, and places you want your text to appear, “Writing Style for Print v. Web" instead examines the more complicated techniques online text utilizes compared to print text in order to gain a following. Neilsen claims that print text is more simplistic because in web writing; there are many factors to having your work seen by the public. On the web, you have to sift through many different sites to find what you are looking for while in print; it is directly presented to you and immediately meets your interest. He uses an example of a phrase like "tall traveler's curse" that would work in print to draw reader in, however claims this simplistic title would have no place in the digital world, as it has no information- carrying content. The headline lacks the use of keywords correlating with search engine optimization, a technique used to get your writing viewed by a broader audience.
Although this technique is proven to work, a lot goes into making your writing viewed in the vast abyss of the World Wide Web, requiring that much more effort. Because of the reader’s short attention span on the web in order to accurately find their perfect source, your web's content must be brief and get to the point immediately in order for traffic to generate and the readers to stay on your page. Print on the other hand, only has to focus on it's well constructive sentences, catchy titles, and eye catching photos. He continues on with the point that the web is too fast paced for big picture learning. The web focuses on brevity, and a summary of information while digital text is around for the long haul and goes in depth to teach it's audience. He sum's up his article stating that with print, you construct your own experience while in web published text, users construct their own experience by piecing together different sources in order to get their site to be the most recognized.
Nielsen’s point resonates with me because I have a lot of experience with SEO and generating traffic to sites. I work for a website called Everlasting Footprint and am in charge of doing key word optimization in order for Google to recognize our articles and push them to the top pages. In order to do so, not only do you have to include the key words in your title but also place them casually in the articles at least three or four times in order for Google to recognize it’s authenticity. There is a lot that goes with web text today, and as Nielsen pointed it, the focus has changed from learning to popularity. Users write using different techniques in order to generate the most traffic to their sites and end up focusing less on the material and rather on the key words used and how concise their information is in order to grab the reader’s attention. Print on the other hand explores information fully and doesn’t use any tricks in order to reach its targeted audience.
Between the two articles, I would have to agree with George, Lawson, and Lockridge. It is impossible for me to overlook that fact the Neilsen’s argument is too limited in its scope. I do not outright disagree with his assertion that the web is an “active medium”, however he reduces the capacity of the Internet to just a tool of immediacy and utility. This immediately negates the Internet as a valuable source of linear material, effectively rendering digital texts like short stories, fan fictions, blogs, and myriad other genres obsolete. Neilsen restricts the usefulness of the Internet as a writing tool and it is reflected in the style of the article itself. To prove his point, the piece is an exercise in brevity: its information is fairly easy to grasp with its concise details, bulleted structure, and general omission of the elements common to a narrative. However, he neglects to acknowledge that a narrative piece can adapt to the Internet and an audience that might indeed be “on a mission” by using features like hyperlinks to guide the audience’s interest. The New York Times’ “Snow Fall” is an excellent example of a piece that accomplishes this feat.
Consequently, I must agree with George, Lawson, and Lockridge. They acknowledge the many capacities of the Internet, which absorbs Neilsen’s argumentation. Even the piece itself demonstrates how authors can craft a piece that can placate an eclectic audience. The digital piece features narrative qualities like an anecdote about a joke and stylized writing not akin to academia, elements that might appeal to Neilsen’s “passive” audience. However, the piece also simultaneously uses features unique to a digital real like hyperlinks and links to different sections of the piece (ie “Epigraph”, Pages 1-26, and “References”), which would appeal to Neilsen’s “active” audience. Basically, George, Lawson, and Lockridge view writers as individuals who must adjust and respond to possibilities afforded by digital media with the consideration of factors like the rhetorical situation, genres, and modes. Neilsen would have us believe that the linear form is exclusive to print, whereas the authors of “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” point out that the composition of a text is not relegated to a strict dichotomy, but a fluid manipulation of the tools available. They demonstrate this notion with the breakdown of The Photographer, a rhetorically complex book whose the composition reflects a careful set of choices with modes and genres to achieve a desired effect, as opposed to a text that is relegated to the conventions of a preconceived notion of linearity and print.
Additionally, on the most basic level, the argumentative content of Neilsen’s piece left me with nothing tangible to grasp. For instance, “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” warrants its claims with concrete examples, making its claims easier to agree with. Conversely, Neilsen often resorts to generalizations and heavily subjective comments, which coincides his narrow-minded perception of print and Internet audiences.
"Why Linearity is Not the Issue" - “Linearity, quite frankly, has become our latest taboo.” - If poetry is anything, what is the distinction between poetry and prose? - gestalt of the comic -the interplay of the tiers of an image on a page, the way a two-page spread can work to frame and augment the drama, and the aspects of timing, meter, and rhythm - new work of composing is about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear + responsibility for understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its limits - the way we read comics is both dialogic and recursive I took "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" as a text about intention and format and the effect of both, as well as the ways that they play off each other. I liked a lot of the ideas, but I disagreed with something he said while discussing Josh Neufeld’s New Orleans After the Delug: “Print cannot put audio, video, archival reportage, and more at our fingertips for immediate access. The digital text cannot -- or, at least, currently does not -- achieve what Neufeld calls the gestalt of the comic.” I read a ridiculous amount of webcomics and it’s my informed opinion that with a digital space nothing is lost and much is gained in regards to the artist and storytellers’ options. - - - - "Writing Style for Print v. Web" - Linear vs. non-linear. Author-driven vs. reader-driven. Storytelling vs. ruthless pursuit of actionable content. Anecdotal examples vs. comprehensive data. Sentences vs. fragments. - lean-forward v. lean-back - Web is an active medium, TV is a passive medium - guidelines for writing for the Web such as the first 3 words of a title must have information-carrying content because users often scroll down lists - Web rewards comprehensive coverage that's more specific than print content - Narrative vs. Actionable Content – in print, you can add onto linear narrative to support a storytelling approach to exposition; on the Web this content feels like filler This piece was more helpful, more organized, and more accessible. I feel like I got a very clear message, much moreso than while going through the first reading, and I feel like that itself helps prove the points in the reading well. It was to the point, with all important areas clearly labeled an addition information only a click away without cluttering the space, and unhindered by unnecessary exposition. - - - - In my views I leaned more towards "Writing Style for Print v. Web", but as for the pieces themselves I more favored the clean layout of "Why Linearity is Not the Issue". "Writing Style for Print v. Web" took full technical advantage of its medium as a digital text, but overall it was clumpy and aesthetically uncomfortable.
I leaned more towards agreeing with the second piece "Why Linearity is Not The Issue". This largely has to do with the fact that I thought Jakob Nielsen's article was rubbish. This guy is trying to compare "Print Vs. Web" but really doesn't even do it. He makes a claim about print (opinionated) and then makes a claim about the web (opinionated), except it seems he changes the context of whatever he is comparing. What I mean is he discusses print, and he says that print can have anecdotes and prose and all that, but then he goes on to say that this can't happen on the web because stuff has to be short and to-the-point. He basically makes the claim that people don't use the web to genuinely read, but rather just to get in and get out quick. But that's just not true. Now, what I liked about the second piece is that it sounded like it was written by an educated person(s). It wasn't charged by silly opinions, it was actually informative. Hell, they even threw a shout-out to Kress. Specifically, I liked what they had to say about the "new work of composing". I liked this because it reiterated what I feel we've often said in class which is: deciding on a medium really depends on the message you're trying to convey. You need to consider who your audience is and "where and how you want your text to appear". This seems fundamental in the whole print vs. online thing. Really, I think it just depends on what you're going for. For example, you wanna write a book? Probably wanna go with print. You wanna share a bomb potato salad recipe with people? Probably wanna put that up online.
I agree more with “Why Linearity is Not The Issue”. First of all, I think they have more to their side of the argument, using multiple examples like poetry, comics, graphic novels, photography, and books. The one I related to and understood the most was graphic novels and photography. Although graphic novels have linearity to them, I feel it is a very grey area, and often find myself going back to look at an image or looking at an image before the text while someone else might do the opposite. “Despite this, comics also highlight the weakness of unreflective criticisms of linearity because, like most ostensibly “linear” forms, making meaning in comics actually demands of a highly recursive and frequently tangential literacy.” This line in the article is exactly how I feel with most text today. I feel even more like this with photography. Having studied photojournalism for a year in college, I completely see how although we often discuss linear story telling, that isn’t it’s main point. The main purpose is drawing someone’s eyes to your image, and although you might have a place you want them to look first, you really just want them to see it eventually. I feel “Writing Style for Print v. Web” argues too strict of a point. Of course I think people think differently when they read a newspaper vs. scanning the web, but I also think people will still read an entire article online and have the same opinion afterwards. It’s like how Prof. Craig said in class that studies have found we use the same part of our brain when we have a conversation as when we send a text; it is a different medium, but we are still sending/receiving information, especially in this case, because both are permanent and you aren’t waiting for someone to respond. This is why I feel like the Linearity argument makes more sense, because we can say that for all text and not divide them by what source they are shown in.
“Writing Style for Print vs. Web”
ReplyDeleteWeb article headline guidelines:
- Information-carrying content
- Common key words
- Must provoke readers to click the link; headline has an “information scent”
Print publications contain linear content, consumed in a relaxed situation. Web articles are read quickly, satisfying a solution. “Web users want actionable content.” Online texts are user-driven because the articles are based on the needs of the web search. Furhtermore, web users read with a goal and as a result they piece information together, making content reader-driven. Also, Nieslon believes that the Web is not appropriate for learning unless a framework of information on the subject is already in place.
“Why Linearity is not the Issue”
“The new work of composing, like the old work of composing, is about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear. More than that, the new work of composing is about responsibility: understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its limits.”
Part of the power of comics (and other common texts) relies on linearity, because the texts in displayed in a sequence, starting at one point and ending at another. Although this is true, readers often do not follow that sequence. Instead, “they engage in the text as they please.”
Information and meaning differs based on what media is used for the text. One can understand a new type of text based on known text types composed in familiar media.
“And it isn’t the hyperlink or the audio clip that allows it to work; the Olive Project works because it draws upon our existing knowledge of technologies, genre conventions, and storytelling.”
Writers should not focus on the linearity of their work but rather the appropriate response to the rhetorical situation.
Response:
I agree most with the viewpoint of “Writing Style for Print vs. Web.” As I read the article, I understood and agreed with Nielson’s concepts. Print and Web are two different media and a writer must understand the restrictions and affordances of each space. Likewise, print media is author-driven and Web media is reader-driven. It makes sense because web searches are based on users’ desire for an immediate response, so therefore, users piece together information in different articles for their information. This is unlike print media, which slow the amount of information, resulting in a more relaxed reader that appreciates the anecdotes and detail provided by the author.
I agree most with Nielsen’s view in Writing Style for Print vs. Web. Nielsen’s view basically comes down to control. Control that is ultimately comes from the reader or the writer and the power of control is determined based on whether the information is in print or online. In written text, the writer has the control because the information is constricted and the reader must trust that what is there is all accurate, However, in hyperlink text, the reader “constructs their own experience” and therefore determines what they want to read, how much they want to read, and can go through multiple windows to get the information. Nielsen separates this control by many segments including linear vs. non-linear, author-driven vs., reader-driven, storytelling vs. ruthless pursuit of actionable content, anecdotal examples vs. comprehensive data, and sentence vs. fragments. All of these components differentiate the pros and cons of the style used for writing on print vs. inline. This view resonates with me more because through my internship this past semester at a Public Relations firm I have seen how truly impactful the choice of print vs. the web can determine the success of the content. It is truly an art to understand what you think readers will most appreciate and give the desired reaction.
ReplyDeleteThe view that I agree with most is the “Writing Style for Print vs. Web” by Jakob Nielsen. The features of this view had to do with a couple of different topics. He broke down the differences of writing in print vs. the web with word choice, syntax and linearity to name a few. Nielsen’s work is something that resonates more with me because what he is saying with the different type of writing styles for different mediums is relating to my own life. I have written in both print and online mediums for the magazines that I am apart of and I can see exactly what Nielsen is explaining. When I edit my articles for the online publication with my editor, he has trained me to be more short and to the point. Long drawn out sentences is something that he urges me to change. Even heavy sentences that sound way too formal are not really ideal for the medium that we are publishing in. Our readers want quick, “comprehensive coverage” and “specific” content like Nielsen states. Another important and very true thing is how readers can make their way through a piece on either the print or the web. With print, the author has much more control on when the reader will be getting the information—it is read in a linear fashion. However on the web, the reader can click around. It is even a requirement with my editor that I include three hyperlinks to other articles on the site within each of the articles I write. Text on the web is hyperlink text. Nielsen says, “In non-linear hypertext, the rules reverse.” Talking about how the author wants the user to “construct their own experience.” Overall, I get what Nielsen is saying because I can that I have been in either position and as a writer in both online and print text; my style does need to change.
ReplyDelete"Writing Style For Print Vs Web" by Jakob Nielsen offers a different perspective from "Why Linearity Is Not The Issue" by Diana George, Dan Lawson, and Tim Lockridge. The second piece does discuss linearity as well as mode, and even quotes Gunther Kress saying "Not everything can be realized in every mode with equal facility". However, I preferred the ideas presented in Nielsen's piece.
ReplyDeleteHe presents the differences in print publications and web media in a very easy-to-understand way, and relates each point to every day examples that the reader can agree with. He explains that the very first difference in the two is the way that the articles are presented. Headlines are different than link titles, as a print text reader is looking for an author-driven story, whereas a web surfer is looking for very specific content tailored to their needs, or "actionable" content. Another main difference is in the way that the experience is constructed - the reader constructs the web experience, while the author constructs the print experience.
I can personally relate to this, as oftentimes web articles are searched for and scanned for information that the reader needs. I do this myself whenever I'm looking for things on the internet. If I need specific information, I can search keywords. Print text does not rely on keywords or readers that are searching for specific information. I find that if I'm writing something that is to be printed, I'm more likely to tell a story with embellishments and "extras". When I'm typing up something for web presentation I am more likely to be short, sweet, and to the point for maximum views.
After reading both of the arguments presented in Writing Style for Print vs. Web and The New Work of Composing, I felt myself leaning in agreement more towards Jakob Neilson. He makes several great cases in points as to why writing for print and writing for the web must be inherently different. A printed affords for greater details, more divulged content, and allowance of an overarching story to be conceived. The web must act in complete juxtaposition. The content should be fragmented, it needs to be concise and to the point, and over divulgence in detailed storytelling needs to avoided. Each of these styles, he states serves a purpose. The print is very author-driven, meaning the reader is allowing the author to shape their subjective viewpoint through the use of writing techniques like anecdotes, examples, etc. The web, in opposition, is reader-driven. The content must be able to quickly accommodate the readers’ needs in only a few seconds (typically). I agree with this two-fold way of analyzing print and digital texts, because it plays off of the idea of what each form should provide to the reader. The web is meant to provide the reader with answers. What Neilson calls “filler material” which is important in creating the storyline on a printed text is the downfall in texts online. While the print can provide much more scenic driven details, the web allows for far more immediacy.
ReplyDeleteI think Neilson’s argument resonate with me, because I believe that text should always be conscious of the intentionality of the readers. Why would someone choose a printed text over a digital and vice-versa? Each of these modes relies on a different set of standards that conform to readers’ intention for usage. I think writing styles are more focused on how a text is should be provided to the reader, in order to capture their attention and then the ‘what is being told in the text’ becomes the secondary concern.
“Writing Style for Print vs. Web” offers a view of online writing that I can agree with. This view considers the web an active medium where users are engaged in what they are seeing. Nielsen’s view takes into account that when people are using the web, they are actively scrolling through pages or looking for information. Most things that a viewer quickly deems as irrelevant will be overlooked while scrolling. Nielsen’s view also features the importance of the scrolling on how people will view a web page. Users generally read the first few words on the left of the page when searching a site. Any titles or subtitles that fail to convey vital information in this left-most orientation will often be ignored. Nielsen also makes the important point of web content needing to be brief. The internet is used for convenience purposes, it’s easy to search something and find a quick answer or source. If there is too much content to sift through, this almost defeats the web’s purpose of convenience. Nielsen also explained that briefness includes sentence fragments being more effective (for online) than complete sentences. This would allow somebody to quickly determine the main point of an article and then actually read it if they found the ‘quick version’ interesting. Nielsen’s view resonated with me the most because his main point was about how imperative it is to be concise online. I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard similar advice and found it to be true as I read and search for things online myself.
ReplyDeleteI lean towards agreeing with George, Lawson, and Lockridge’s article rather than Nielsen’s article. Neilsen homogenizes online consumers, and his presumptuous ideas about what these consumers want are rooted in opinions more than in facts. For example, Neilsen writes, “In print, you can spice up linear narrative with anecdotes and individual examples that support a storytelling approach to exposition. On the Web, such content often feels like filler.” This is merely an opinion and discredits the web as a medium capable of linear storytelling. What about the many publications that use the web as a way to reach more readers than they could through print? Neilsen presumes that readers never read digital text without expecting to encounter certain genres like short stories, narrative essays, and other prose-heavy genres whose details Neilsen would consider “froufrou.”
ReplyDeleteGeorge, Lawson, and Lockridge’s article contradicts Neilsen’s reductive approach and puts the power back in the hands of writers rather than making creators pander to consumers. “The “new work of composition and production,” then, is far more complex than knowing how to handle the latest digital technology. The new work of composing, like the old work of composing, is about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear. (George, Lawson, and Lockridge 4). Notice the repetitive use of “you” as the subject in this quote. They place the writer in the pilot seat. The creator is the one in charge of how texts are presented rather than the creator having to “support the user’s personal story” as Neilsen suggests. George, Lawson and Lockridge advocate “understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its limits” which puts a focus more on the affordances of digital media rather than the consumers. They encourage an understanding of digital media’s various forms so that writers can present their message in the strongest way possible. This is more compelling than Neilsen’s view because Neilsen is often just listing things one must cut or rearrange. He dictates what to do rather than encouraging a holistic understanding of digital media.
Before even addressing why I agree significantly more with "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" I think it's important to say why I disagree so strongly with "Writing Style for Print v Web." Jakob Nielsen makes a significant number of claims in his piece that generally take the form of "Print is [this]. Web is [this]." And I think that by making these statements, or classifying linear media as print and tv when his article in constructed in an entirely linear fashion limits his arguments and makes them impossible to agree with.
ReplyDelete"Why Linearity is Not the Issue," however, discusses many different aspects of texts such as genre conventions, composition, reader experience, and (of course) linearity. It takes the approach that texts are neither black or white but that they are grey. We can combine a linear and hypertextual method in the same text. Web texts can be (and often are) linear and that's alright because linearity is most effective for their particular rhetorical situations. I think this is summed up perfectly in the quote: "Rather, relevance is (as it has always been) determined by using the most appropriate medium and genre in the most appropriate manner available given a contingent audience, purpose, and rhetorical situation."
Prior to reading this I would have jumped at this "web is hyper textual" idea that Nielsen provides, but it's not at all true. I'm composing a linear text because it's most effective for the assignment. This entire idea resonates with me heavily because it shows: "The “new work of composition and production,” then, is far more complex than knowing how to handle the latest digital technology." We can see this in producing every digital text we make. Through ideas we learned in rhetoric, our day to day interactions and compositions with technology, and our studying and close analyzation of texts we know that there is significantly more than linearity versus hypertextuality and one medium versus another. We are learning to compose in conjunction with genre conventions as well as in spite of them and so while linearity is a topic, I agree that it is not the issue. The following quote, while at the beginning of the reading, sum up this idea perfectly:
"In other words, the only difference is in how we see it or in what we might expect from a text set up as a series of stanzas in a narrow column with lots of white space all around. Layout. Design. Genre expectation. Habit."
We take so much into consideration when composing/designing/viewing/etc.
"Writing Style for Print v. Web" by Jakob Nielson and "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" by Diana George, Dan Lawson, and Tim Lockridge offer somewhat, though not drastically different views of the differences between online and print texts. Nielson takes the less enthusiastic view of web writing. Although he finds the web useful for uncovering individual facts, he doesn't believe it to be an ideal tool for serious learning. The authors of "Why Linearity is Not the Issue," on the other hand, see the web as an equally valuable medium, although they posit that not all media are equally suited to all types of texts. They also argue that web pages have the ability to limit reader's access to information - not only to increase it.
ReplyDeleteWhile both articles have interesting points, I find myself gravitating towards Nielson's view because I find that his points are generally, though not always true. While it is possible to look at the web with the intention of serious learning, it certainly happens less often. As humans, we are easily distractible, and when a medium offers us the ability to customize our leaning experience, gathering bits and pieces of information as we choose while tuning others out, we will most often take advantage of it - and when we so often elect to navigate the web in this manner, sites will tend to be designed with our preference in mind.
It is true that many sites do restrict the reader's access to the information, such as "The Olive Project: an oral composition in multiple modes," an example site given in the other article. However, any website designed in a non-linear manner creates omissions as well; even if readers must click on certain items to reach information, they are still free to choose only those ones that happen to capture their interest. In a linear print text, readers are generally encouraged to experience the information in a particular order, from beginning to end. The only way that an online text can achieve exactly the same effect is by copying the linear format of a print text.
Just as "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" suggests that not all media are equally suited to all types of texts, I think that not all learning styles are equally suited to all kinds of texts. There is nothing wrong with using the web; for some types of learning it can be a valuable tool, while in other learning situations it will be less productive.
I agree with the view of “Writing Style for Print v. Web”. In the article, Jakob Nielsen summarizes the difference between Web and television as active vs passive. I agree that users of the Web are actively engaged and searching for something. However, while watching television, viewers are relaxing and looking for entertainment. Nielsen uses the example of The New York Times article “Coping With the Tall Traveler’s Curse.” The same article would not be received well on the Web because it “lacked keywords, was not specific and had no information-carrying content.” I agree that users of the Web are most likely searching for best deals not just articles about tall travelers. The Web also provides more specific content than print. Users can search for the exact thing they are looking for. I also agree with Nielsen’s point that print takes on a storytelling approach. Information on the Web is much more brief because users “read only 18% of added verbiage.” The users also choose what they want to read on the Web. Nielsen makes a point that users visit a website for a purpose and achieve this purpose despite distractions. Although George, Lawson and Lockridge make good points, their article did not resonate as well with me. I agree that people seek different things online and in print. Writing online is going to be different because users already know what they want. Therefore, writing tends to be shorter and to the point. Writing in print is written more for entertainment. While online, I constantly jump from page to page looking for the most interesting articles. However if I am reading a newspaper or magazine, I read for leisure.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Neilsen’s view. This is mostly so because he presents his argument in the format in which he believes web users read. He is concise in explanation and his work contains hyperlinks that could be clicked on if the reader chose to do so. A reader can simply read his main page and get the point however without reading the extra links, which emphasis his point of people customizing their online experience. Neilsen also mentions that a linear approach is most beneficial when in print when education is the purpose of the reading. With the other article it takes into account the individual, when there is more to be understood when focusing on the whole of readers. When looking at readers as a whole we see, like Neilsen says, that an audience only reads certain parts, only reads about 18% of what is actually on the screen. What needs to be understood is that there are two very different methods to reading, both can be simply stated as how we read print and how we read on the web. Print is deemed more scholarly while the web offers more to do with interpersonal connections that are more casual and not necessarily necessary. We read deeper with print, but we can take in more on the web
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Writing Style for Print vs. the Web. What I mostly agree with is that titles have more importance when it comes to the web. Aside from titles, word choice in general is more important. The author states that in a writing style for print, the writer is capable of being more descriptive and contains extras such as "interesting anecdotes." Also, the web is more known for presenting its readers with straight to the point, valuable information. It is more "specific" than what is presented in print content. I also agree with the Nielsen, that linear media is primarily for those who want the writer to create an experience. The author describes this type of audience as the "selfish reader."
ReplyDeleteAll the differences between print and media writing can be seen on a daily basis and how it is presented for different audiences. I strongly agree that those selfish readers depend on the web rather than any type of printed text. I agree with what Nielsen states because I am able to consider my own writing when I think of what he is presenting. I sometimes think that what is being written isn't as important as how I am able to captivate my audience online. When it is a print text, I tend to care more and put more examples, images, and pay more attention to the layout that will be presented. This is why the web and text should both be incorporated in learning situations. Different students/audiences approach subjects in different ways and they should be able to have the means that best suit them.
I agree most with George, Lawson, and Lockridge’s article – finding Nielsen’s approach to covering the difference between print and web to be reductive. He boils down each medium to a blanket phrase. In his view, print is “linear, author-driven, storytelling, full of complete sentences”, while the web is “non-linear, reader-driven, contains actionable content, and is full of fragmented sentences.” This is an oversimplification that I don’t entirely agree with. I think there is a place for linearity on the web (and it’s certainly possible for an author to create such an experience), and therefore it can contain a comparable level of passivity.
ReplyDelete“Why Linearity is Not The Issue”, however, acknowledges more of the nuances of both the web and print, and provides a more comprehensive analysis of issues of composition, reader experience, and linearity in print and web content. While Nielsen gives strict guidelines on composition, George, Lawson, and Lockridge equip the reader with tools of understanding how to make compositional choices. They state that composing is “about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear” (26). While Nielsen holds the belief that compositional choices are beholden to the perceived expectations of the reader, George, Lawson, and Lockridge broaden this by stating that “composing is about responsibility: understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its contingent audience, purpose, and rhetorical situation” (26). “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” also counters Nielsen’s simplification of web and print – into oppositional non-linear and linear mediums -- with a statement that also serves as a summary of the main point of the article: “Even the most traditional and linear texts are subject to the non-linear movements of readers” (13). In other words, linearity is not the issue.
I agree with Neilsen’s viewpoint in "Writing Style for Print v. Web." While “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” focuses on how both print and web writing are utilized for various purposes, audiences, and places you want your text to appear, “Writing Style for Print v. Web" instead examines the more complicated techniques online text utilizes compared to print text in order to gain a following. Neilsen claims that print text is more simplistic because in web writing; there are many factors to having your work seen by the public. On the web, you have to sift through many different sites to find what you are looking for while in print; it is directly presented to you and immediately meets your interest. He uses an example of a phrase like "tall traveler's curse" that would work in print to draw reader in, however claims this simplistic title would have no place in the digital world, as it has no information- carrying content. The headline lacks the use of keywords correlating with search engine optimization, a technique used to get your writing viewed by a broader audience.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this technique is proven to work, a lot goes into making your writing viewed in the vast abyss of the World Wide Web, requiring that much more effort. Because of the reader’s short attention span on the web in order to accurately find their perfect source, your web's content must be brief and get to the point immediately in order for traffic to generate and the readers to stay on your page. Print on the other hand, only has to focus on it's well constructive sentences, catchy titles, and eye catching photos. He continues on with the point that the web is too fast paced for big picture learning. The web focuses on brevity, and a summary of information while digital text is around for the long haul and goes in depth to teach it's audience. He sum's up his article stating that with print, you construct your own experience while in web published text, users construct their own experience by piecing together different sources in order to get their site to be the most recognized.
Nielsen’s point resonates with me because I have a lot of experience with SEO and generating traffic to sites. I work for a website called Everlasting Footprint and am in charge of doing key word optimization in order for Google to recognize our articles and push them to the top pages. In order to do so, not only do you have to include the key words in your title but also place them casually in the articles at least three or four times in order for Google to recognize it’s authenticity. There is a lot that goes with web text today, and as Nielsen pointed it, the focus has changed from learning to popularity. Users write using different techniques in order to generate the most traffic to their sites and end up focusing less on the material and rather on the key words used and how concise their information is in order to grab the reader’s attention. Print on the other hand explores information fully and doesn’t use any tricks in order to reach its targeted audience.
Between the two articles, I would have to agree with George, Lawson, and Lockridge. It is impossible for me to overlook that fact the Neilsen’s argument is too limited in its scope. I do not outright disagree with his assertion that the web is an “active medium”, however he reduces the capacity of the Internet to just a tool of immediacy and utility. This immediately negates the Internet as a valuable source of linear material, effectively rendering digital texts like short stories, fan fictions, blogs, and myriad other genres obsolete. Neilsen restricts the usefulness of the Internet as a writing tool and it is reflected in the style of the article itself. To prove his point, the piece is an exercise in brevity: its information is fairly easy to grasp with its concise details, bulleted structure, and general omission of the elements common to a narrative. However, he neglects to acknowledge that a narrative piece can adapt to the Internet and an audience that might indeed be “on a mission” by using features like hyperlinks to guide the audience’s interest. The New York Times’ “Snow Fall” is an excellent example of a piece that accomplishes this feat.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, I must agree with George, Lawson, and Lockridge. They acknowledge the many capacities of the Internet, which absorbs Neilsen’s argumentation. Even the piece itself demonstrates how authors can craft a piece that can placate an eclectic audience. The digital piece features narrative qualities like an anecdote about a joke and stylized writing not akin to academia, elements that might appeal to Neilsen’s “passive” audience. However, the piece also simultaneously uses features unique to a digital real like hyperlinks and links to different sections of the piece (ie “Epigraph”, Pages 1-26, and “References”), which would appeal to Neilsen’s “active” audience. Basically, George, Lawson, and Lockridge view writers as individuals who must adjust and respond to possibilities afforded by digital media with the consideration of factors like the rhetorical situation, genres, and modes. Neilsen would have us believe that the linear form is exclusive to print, whereas the authors of “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” point out that the composition of a text is not relegated to a strict dichotomy, but a fluid manipulation of the tools available. They demonstrate this notion with the breakdown of The Photographer, a rhetorically complex book whose the composition reflects a careful set of choices with modes and genres to achieve a desired effect, as opposed to a text that is relegated to the conventions of a preconceived notion of linearity and print.
Additionally, on the most basic level, the argumentative content of Neilsen’s piece left me with nothing tangible to grasp. For instance, “Why Linearity is Not the Issue” warrants its claims with concrete examples, making its claims easier to agree with. Conversely, Neilsen often resorts to generalizations and heavily subjective comments, which coincides his narrow-minded perception of print and Internet audiences.
"Why Linearity is Not the Issue"
ReplyDelete- “Linearity, quite frankly, has become our latest taboo.”
- If poetry is anything, what is the distinction between poetry and prose?
- gestalt of the comic -the interplay of the tiers of an image on a page, the way a two-page spread can work to frame and augment the drama, and the aspects of timing, meter, and rhythm
- new work of composing is about deciding what you want a text to do, what audience you want to reach, and where and how you want that text to appear + responsibility for understanding new technologies’ countless possibilities as well as its limits
- the way we read comics is both dialogic and recursive
I took "Why Linearity is Not the Issue" as a text about intention and format and the effect of both, as well as the ways that they play off each other. I liked a lot of the ideas, but I disagreed with something he said while discussing Josh Neufeld’s New Orleans After the Delug: “Print cannot put audio, video, archival reportage, and more at our fingertips for immediate access. The digital text cannot -- or, at least, currently does not -- achieve what Neufeld calls the gestalt of the comic.” I read a ridiculous amount of webcomics and it’s my informed opinion that with a digital space nothing is lost and much is gained in regards to the artist and storytellers’ options.
- - - -
"Writing Style for Print v. Web"
- Linear vs. non-linear. Author-driven vs. reader-driven. Storytelling vs. ruthless pursuit of actionable content. Anecdotal examples vs. comprehensive data. Sentences vs. fragments.
- lean-forward v. lean-back
- Web is an active medium, TV is a passive medium
- guidelines for writing for the Web such as the first 3 words of a title must have information-carrying content because users often scroll down lists
- Web rewards comprehensive coverage that's more specific than print content
- Narrative vs. Actionable Content – in print, you can add onto linear narrative to support a storytelling approach to exposition; on the Web this content feels like filler
This piece was more helpful, more organized, and more accessible. I feel like I got a very clear message, much moreso than while going through the first reading, and I feel like that itself helps prove the points in the reading well. It was to the point, with all important areas clearly labeled an addition information only a click away without cluttering the space, and unhindered by unnecessary exposition.
- - - -
In my views I leaned more towards "Writing Style for Print v. Web", but as for the pieces themselves I more favored the clean layout of "Why Linearity is Not the Issue". "Writing Style for Print v. Web" took full technical advantage of its medium as a digital text, but overall it was clumpy and aesthetically uncomfortable.
I leaned more towards agreeing with the second piece "Why Linearity is Not The Issue". This largely has to do with the fact that I thought Jakob Nielsen's article was rubbish. This guy is trying to compare "Print Vs. Web" but really doesn't even do it. He makes a claim about print (opinionated) and then makes a claim about the web (opinionated), except it seems he changes the context of whatever he is comparing. What I mean is he discusses print, and he says that print can have anecdotes and prose and all that, but then he goes on to say that this can't happen on the web because stuff has to be short and to-the-point. He basically makes the claim that people don't use the web to genuinely read, but rather just to get in and get out quick. But that's just not true. Now, what I liked about the second piece is that it sounded like it was written by an educated person(s). It wasn't charged by silly opinions, it was actually informative. Hell, they even threw a shout-out to Kress. Specifically, I liked what they had to say about the "new work of composing". I liked this because it reiterated what I feel we've often said in class which is: deciding on a medium really depends on the message you're trying to convey. You need to consider who your audience is and "where and how you want your text to appear". This seems fundamental in the whole print vs. online thing. Really, I think it just depends on what you're going for. For example, you wanna write a book? Probably wanna go with print. You wanna share a bomb potato salad recipe with people? Probably wanna put that up online.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with “Why Linearity is Not The Issue”. First of all, I think they have more to their side of the argument, using multiple examples like poetry, comics, graphic novels, photography, and books. The one I related to and understood the most was graphic novels and photography. Although graphic novels have linearity to them, I feel it is a very grey area, and often find myself going back to look at an image or looking at an image before the text while someone else might do the opposite. “Despite this, comics also highlight the weakness of unreflective criticisms of linearity because, like most ostensibly “linear” forms, making meaning in comics actually demands of a highly recursive and frequently tangential literacy.” This line in the article is exactly how I feel with most text today.
ReplyDeleteI feel even more like this with photography. Having studied photojournalism for a year in college, I completely see how although we often discuss linear story telling, that isn’t it’s main point. The main purpose is drawing someone’s eyes to your image, and although you might have a place you want them to look first, you really just want them to see it eventually.
I feel “Writing Style for Print v. Web” argues too strict of a point. Of course I think people think differently when they read a newspaper vs. scanning the web, but I also think people will still read an entire article online and have the same opinion afterwards. It’s like how Prof. Craig said in class that studies have found we use the same part of our brain when we have a conversation as when we send a text; it is a different medium, but we are still sending/receiving information, especially in this case, because both are permanent and you aren’t waiting for someone to respond. This is why I feel like the Linearity argument makes more sense, because we can say that for all text and not divide them by what source they are shown in.