Dipsy Doodle and Yippy Skippy, I forgot this one too

(Hanging head in shame) . . . .

A major line in the first chapter of the Flash readings is: "The user's ability to control the pace affects the storytelling significantly." Indeed. As journalism technology has grown, the ability for readers and consumers of media to control the way they see it has also improved. In addition, the information has become much easier to digest, as more is presented in interesting ways.

This type of journalism, which gets the maximum amount of information to the reader in as simple a way as possible, was perfect for detailing the particulars of the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy.

I also noted the line from the second chapter that described Flash as "The PDF of interactive media." My experiences with PDF (including being unable to read e-res materials using Firefox browser in the convergence computer lab) are not always positive, as it involves long load times and often a frozen computer. I guess I haven't seen enough Flash Web sites to experience a similar amount of slowdown. Though certain sites, espn.com being a chief offender, have sometimes used so much Flash on their front page, they almost invite someone who is not on a Super Internet Connection Paid for by a University to go elsewhere. I know that when there is an option to "skip intro" I use it every single time.

Still, as Flash and people's ability to use it evolves, its many uses and dynamic quality will continue to show its usefulness.

(And I got through without a single refernce to the Queen song "Flash").

Oopsy doodles I missed this one on the schedule

As a lay internet consumer, before I became "trained" per se on the rhyme and reason of internet journalism and multimedia, I had mixed views on flash. It has always been neat, and a lot of times I would enjoy navigating through all the fun things with the fun animations, but to be completely honest, I used to rarely view those types of presentations (and when I speak of this, I am talking like the fat kid school where the entire thing is comprised of a flash presentation). This is due to two things:

1) It takes a long time to load--self-explanatory. Why wait for some really flashy presentation to load when I can glean the same information from a simple html page with text and a picture or two?
2) A flash window does not save history, or have a go back button. I can't count the amount of times where I have been in a flash window and have wanted to go back a page or two pages and get frustrated because there is no way to.

I honestly think that I am pretty patient internet consumer, so I can only imagine what the average short-attention span MTV-type personality does. I think that flash applications are fantastic, and when integrated well, provide for some awesome internetting, but too much can come at a bit of a cost.

Flash Journalism

Though radio, television and still photography are the most traditional skills we have worked on this semester, Flash seems like it could be most useful. I believe the ability to create Flash animations will be in high demand in the future. We have talked about how people like information that is interactive. I would bet websites that use Flash animation see more hits in the area of the site with the animation than in other areas of the same site. I know that animated graphics immediately catch my attention when I visit a new webpage. I can’t wait to have an opportunity to use even the simple Flash skills we learned in class this week.

flash

After reading some of the benefits associated with flash journalism according to McAdams, I started to wonder what the eventual limits of interactive journalism will be. McAdams explains that audio slideshows are better than their individual subparts when compiled effectively because a journalist can appeal to two senses simultaneously (sound and sight) rather than just one. As technological development continues to bypass all preconceived expectations, one has to wonder what sense journalists will be able to convey to readers next. Perhaps it won’t be long before our computers have the capability needed to emit scents during an audio slideshow or TV package, finally appealing to a third sense and giving viewers a better feel of the environment and situation that they are witnessing. Sorry for the spacetrip, but that is just one of many points in McAdam’s chapters that jumped out and left me wondering about the future.
Transitioning back to the meat of these chapters, I think that McAdams did an excellent job finally establishing what various sources consider to be “interactive”. My favorite explanation of interactivity comes from Shedroff who defines it as a medium open to feedback, control, creativity, productivity, communication and adaptivity. McAdams also warns that more interactivity is not always necessarily better, and that we as journalists need to make sure that our content comes before our web design. Although I found the history of Flash to be pretty boring in these chapters, McAdam’s overall tips sparked a few thoughts and kept me engaged throughout the entire reading.

Looks like I'm not the only one that forgot there was a blog post due today.

Flash journalism is exactly the reason that I decided to go with convergence over photo. It's an exciting field mostly because the rules have not been set in stone yet, and maybe never will be because of the fast-paced change in technology.
The parallel drawn between the online journalism world and video games was interesting. I had never thought about plunging the viewer quite that deeply into the story. Clearly, the author was not suggesting making a game when it did not apply to the news story, but there are many narrative stories where that would be a helpful tool, such as, for example, getting people to try to reenact someone's real life paper route. I don't know when that particular example would ever show up, but it's just an idea to show how games would have a place in journalism. Drawing ideas from video games for journalistic pieces also goes beyond just creating games. People who play video games get to know that virtual world very intimately. If the same interest in a virtual interactive reconstruction of the real world could be replicated without the game aspect of it, I think people's understanding of a story, especially one that takes place in a culture completely different from our own that needs to be understood to grasp the full impact of the story, would be undoubtedly enhanced.
I also think we should remember that if we have fun putting the news out there, people will probably have fun looking at it and get more out of it in the process. I'm not advocating misrepresenting the facts, just not taking ourselves too seriously all of the time. There's just as much damage that can be done in approaching this job in an overly serious way as there is in too lighthearted of a way.

Having been something of a "techie" for quite some time, the use of Flash isn't new to me. I love what interactive elements it can add to an already engaging report. However, I think as more journalists move towards Flash to do their storytelling, careful lines will need to be established. I don't think the interactivity of a game could justify foregoing important journalistic practices. I wish more examples had been used as when to provide Flash content. For example, the earthquake example was clearly powerful, but do all news stories merit a slideshow? Some simply do not.

Still, I love the capabilities of Flash. Just when we were working through the tutorial today, I started brainstorming ways to make Flash work with our existing plans. I think the reading helped me realize it's necessary to use Flash as a tool in storytelling, and not just a way to make the page look (pardon the pun) flashy. I want to incorporate more Flash elements into our content in addition to having Flash help create our design. I think it's good to look for those opportunities, though, rather than create them. Flash and interactivity will have a lot more meaning to audiences if it serves a specific purpose other than impressing viewers with a Flash component.

Flash Journalism

My only fear with entering the convergence journalism sequence was that I would somehow end up becoming a "techie." I don't mean to say this in an offensive way, but I definately didn't want my career to revolve around technical computer skills. Even though they are useful, I want to be a journalist. Now putting those two things together...flash+journalism-it intimidates me because I get the feeling that I might not be competitive in my career field if I don't have these skills.

I agree with the other two posts that have been made. Flash can be interesting and definately something that engages an audience; but McAdam's doesn't really cover the topic of when to use it. I think we tend to form our opinions on this as we see good and bad examples already developed. I thought the Unknown Soldier project with New York Times was a great example of when to use Flash...but we also see really cheesy products that were just an attempt to catch someone's eye. It leaves questions: When do you use it? When is it journalism and when is it entertainment?

Flash Journalism

I thought the information in Mindy McAdam's Flash journalism book was not new to me. She gave a lot of information on how to use Flash, but not when. I think that's the biggest point to keep in mind when using a tool like Flash - is it's use adding to your audience's understanding of the story? Does it simply look cool? Or is it branching into the realm of infotainment?

Matt mentioned in his last post that McAdam's theoretical use of games in journalism can be dangerous, and I agree. While it might look cool and engage the audience, are you still practicing journalism? Is it cheapening news or widening the audience?

There was a lot of good information on audio slideshows versus video versus text slideshows, giving good advice to the pros and cons of each format. The discussion of interactivity was also useful - too often the word is thrown around, labeling any form of online journalism. There are certain criteria that should be met not only for it to be called interactive, but for it to really utilize the tools available in an online and multimedia world.

Interactive Flash Content

I found many of the observations in "A New Form of Storytelling" on how online content differs from both print and broadcast media due the interactivity and control it provides insightful and helpful in judging my effective use of the medium. Still, I found some of the suggestions in the chapter relatively absurd, even for a theoretic look at what online journalism could in some unrealistic future be. My most salient example is the chapter's suggestion that video games could be incorporated into a journalistic product as a means for the visitor to explore the information in an interactive, fun way. First of all, it is called a game for a reason. Journalism, while entering into a new age where innovation is encouraged, is not a game. Actually following through with some of these more, shall I say, "avant garde" ideas that they throw around in the article could deal a fatal blow to a news organization's credibility. That is, if someone was stupid enough to follow through on making a video game part of their package.

The second chapter, "What Flash Brings to Online Media," read more like a technical manual to me, but its insight into how certain aspects of flash were interesting to me because, although I took a course in high school on web design that included some lessons on basic flash animation and rollover graphics, I never have read about the relationship between journalism and Flash. Reading about applications of a key piece of software to journalism certainly seems worthwhile to me as a student.

Subliminal design

The thing that has really struck me about good and bad web design is the way in which one tells whether it is good or bad. Aside from the very obvious needs of navigation and clarity (anything a monkey holding a banana in one hand and a computer in the other couldn't do is probably a no-no), everything minute about a page that needs to be changed is usually something htat is wrong almost subliminally. In writing, when somehting needs to be editeted, it is because it is confusing or difficult. In video if something needs to be edited, it is due to the fact that it is unnecessary and needs to be shorter. Yet with web design, something gets edited because of the fact that at some level it isn't appealing, whether that is to the eye, the mind, or even the ears. A lot of times there is just no way to explain it, it just doesn't "look right". Color differences that at first glance can be fine, after a while wear on you, or give a bad impression not first realized at first glance of the page. In class when we looked at the two pages, we knew exactly what was wrong with each page without any advanced instruction as to why. Good times.

Oh and congrats Linda again.

Design Frenzy

Before we talked about web design in class, I definitely had my own criteria when surfing the web. If a page was not organized and professional looking, I was very judgmental and questioned its validity. I agreed with many of the design rules mentioned in 4802, but I think it validated my overcritical stance and it may be going overboard. I received an email from a student organization I'm a member of and the alignment was all over the place, with different colors, fonts, and sizes varied throughout. The structure was completely intentional in order to make the informational email an interesting read. But it drove me crazy! Sometimes simplicity is the best method. I think you can still be creative with so many restrictive rules of structure. Although many of the mainstream websites are very similar, they still have their own style that you can recognize. Can't wait to learn php!!!

You can imagine it, but can you create it?

I may stand alone but I think design is just as important as content. If you open up a web page and the content is great, but the design is so obnoxious that people close the window before reading it-you've accomplished nothing.

I also think that we all generally have an idea of what good and bad design is...we are all web users, and we all know what we think looks good and bad-that opinion generally seems to be the same.

My frustration arises in my abilities. I know what a good website is supposed to look like, but sometimes I can't get it there. I have a vision of what I think it should be, but my lack of knowledge with the software programs limits what I can produce. This is by far the most frustrating thing with "design." We can all dream it up, but we can't all create it. grrr...

Design Is Important!

As reporters, I think we sometimes lose track of what constitutes good and bad design. At larger media outlets the design of a news page or website is typically handled by someone other than the person who actually produced the piece. On the other hand, smaller organizations are generally so strapped for resources that text and photos are quickly uploaded into a generic website and the reporter is already on to another story. For us, the “jack-of-all-trades” convergence reporters, thinking through the design elements will be an important part of our processes. Good design obviously makes the public much more receptive to the information we are providing. And design is not an impossibly hard concept to master either. The checklists we went over in class give really good hints at things to consider and they do make a big difference.

I heart design!

Yes!

Design is definitely something I am most interested in, even though it isn’t necessarily the most journalistic aspect. I feel like a lot of times, we completely look over it, like it isn’t as important as the text or video or interview or whatever. But, in all honesty, what is the journalism if no one desires to look at it? I think design is basically step 1 in delivering the news.

I loved the “Not so Good Design Checklist” we looked at in class for websites. In this age of the Internet, a lot of sites are trying to do everything at once, and that is exactly what design should not be. It shouldn’t be crowded, flashy, or over-the-top obvious. It should be subtle; enough to be noticed and draw interest, but not overpower the content, whether that is a news story, an advertisement, or a blog.

Blogs are moving in as a new medium for information, but many still lack the good design elements and are filed with the bad. Look at Facebook vs. MySpace. Facebook is CRAP (contrast, repetition, alignment, proximity that is), while the freedom of MySpace allows people to add color and pictures and writing and music and flashing icons. Obviously, I am not a member of MySpace. One look at those pages and I am completely confused. Our lives are confusing enough; do we really need to add dancing bananas to it?

Another example of good/bad design I see is in broadcast news. Ever travel somewhere and watch the news and feel like it is, well, amateur? I’m from St. Louis, so a bigger city obviously has a bigger news network, but whenever I travel to smaller cities (yes, even when I came here to Columbia), I notice the design of the news- their logo, graphics, music, set, etc. When it looks amateur, the reporters look amateur, thus the information looks amateur- you lose credibility.

As sad as it is, this world is all about sell, sell, sell. We can’t just deliver the news, we have to sell it. And since we can’t spin it to make it a ‘better’ story, we have to do something else, and that is attracting them with design.

Closing the barn door after the horse has escaped . . . .

This is what I get for not reading ahead in the syllabus when attempting to design my horrendously minimalist and ugly Web page for this class. But at the same time, it is good to have these two chapters to supplement what we learned on those assignments, and use it for the final project.
Tuesday's lecture highlighted the four principles of contrast, alignment, repetition and proximity. Conveniently enough, these form the anagram CARP, which is of course a kind of fish as well as the mascot for the Hiroshima-based team in the Japan Baseball League. I did get a kick out of how chapter six repeatedly made the point that they were not looking to harp on mediocre Web sites, but actually took bad ideas from some and created their own sites. Also, the chapter touched on the four CARP principles we previously discussed, but also on something hat many forget, but which has been hammered home in class: the importance of avoiding grammar and spelling mistakes on your Web site.
When chapter eight discussed how to recognize bad design, it seems like the white text on black background idea is an axiom for anyone who has read such a site on the Web. It is more difficult to read, and I usually highlight the text with the mouse to create a dark text/light background view.
It seems like a lot of the poor design principles should be commonly known among those who use the Web with regularity, which is just about everyone these days. For instance, avoiding making the reader side-scroll. I find that annoying as a reader, so that makes sense to me, like many of these ideas. Now the key is to find a way to put these ideas in motion.

I'm not the best designer, but I'm pretty adept with HTML, so I did a lot of coding and design in junior high/high school for extra money. Even though I wasn't always sure what I came up with was the best or brightest idea, I used to look at some of the designs people sketched, and it amazed me what they thought would "work" on the web. (My favorite? Still the woman who wanted me to put an entire row of animated gifs across the bottom of the page to "sing" to visitors. The site was to promote a business solutions start-up company. I don't think it lasted.)

I thought it was important that the readings mentioned some of the simplest rules of design. The more people spend looking at a webpage, they begin to see it's not visually appealing and try to change it, but they don't realize what a difference small things the make. Just the distinction between <br> and <p> is so important. I belong to an online writing community where posters have to format their work themselves, and those that run all the paragraphs together must not understand that it simply doesn't entice anyone to read more. It's not as important in Dreamweaver, but definitely something of which to be aware. With news stories, no one wants to see a long block of type with no visible paragraph breaks.

CRAP, also, is a great way to break down the basic rules of design, but a lot of it is still trial and error. It takes a lot of honesty with yourself to look at something and say, "You're really not doing your best here; this is't something someone will want to look at." It's really necessary to do though because taking risks can land you with the most amazing end product. I know when I was learning to code, I spent a ton of time copying elements from my favorite sites until I found combinations that worked best with whatever content I was using. It's all about trying it out and being flexible.

CRAP

After reading about web design, I understand why looking at the web page I made for this class makes me cringe. Funny how that works for every assignment in this class. You would think I would learn to read ahead, but it never happens. The “CRAP” rules make perfect sense, and are things that I would think about if I were designing something for print. I guess I was thinking about the web as something more abstract, with nearly limitless possibilities. Sure, you can do a lot of things with a website, but if you try to do too much, everything you are trying to communicate will get lost in the labyrinth of orphan pages, poor navigation, bad alignment, etc. Simplicity will always get the point across. This may take a lot of time and nuance (catch word of the class) with Dreamweaver, but it is much better to have a pleasing, if amateur, website over one that you hope will be taken off the web and soon so you can save yourself from the nauseating experience of having people view the disasters you’ve created.

Web design

After reading chapters six and eight of “The Non-Designer’s Web Book,” I learned about several taboo web elements that I would have likely otherwise never thought about. Tips that suggest not leaving link buttons default blue, ensuring that viewers do not have to scroll sideways, and not including any blinking elements seem perfectly logical for a professional website. These chapters suggest that sometimes a seemingly simple site may actually be less confusing and more elegant than one that is gaudy and cluttered. It is not always necessary to prove that you know how to use flash animation if the page is user-friendly and easy to navigate in the first place.
For our final group project, I plan to work on the website whenever I get a chance because I genuinely want to learn more about web-design. I know next to nothing about designing web pages, and believe that this will be an excellent opportunity to employ what I have learned. I hope that we follow the CRAP guidelines—Contrast (maybe a light background with black font), Repetition (repetitive elements that add a sense of consistency to each individual page), Alignment (everything left justified whenever possible), and Proximity (grouping related elements together). These chapters also recommended spell-checking every page, so I will likely type all of my text into Word before copying it to Dreamweaver.

The Beauty of Simplicity

Sometimes it's easy to get so caught up in flash animations, rollover graphics, java applets, etc. that we forget about what is most important—content. Webpage design can be visually pleasing, but its main purpose is to allow consumers to quickly and efficiently access our product, whether its a print story, slideshows, or video.

The best websites in terms of design aren't those with the snazziest graphics—they are simply the most clean, convenient, and consistent. Any design element that is confusing, distracting, or unnecessary just detracts from the quality of the content. In newswriting, you often hear, "Keep it simple, stupid," and that applies in the design world as well.

Though the information provided in the readings might be a little dated, most of the basic ideas still hold true. It's cool to look at websites now and see how C.R.A.P is being used (or not used).

Why?

This is the question I think is not asked enough in web design. The two articles from "The Non-Designer's Web Book" reinforced my belief that designers don't spend the proper time questioning their design decisions. I think if more time was spent during the design or during site revision analyzing the decisions that were made, there might be fewer 'unfriendly' sites out there, forcing us to read white text on a black background or scrolling horizontally.

The four basic principles listed in Chapter 6 - alignment, proximity, repetition and contrast) were a nice starting point to clean functional design. They proved, in my mind, that most design mistakes are made not by placing limits on design but not having enough limits. Creativity does not come about through addition, but through subtraction. That all-important question - why - will lead any level designer to a clearer site through a better understanding of their goals and purposes for each element in their site.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly... Design

I found the chapter on recognizing good and bad design in "The Non-Designer's Web Book" helpful, but also dated and thus lacking. I got a chuckle or two out of some of the "awesomely bad" examples of 8th-grade-history-teacher-quality websites the book showcased. The reality that many amateur web designers include random animated gifs and clip art as soon as someone shows them the tag, producing gaudy or kitsch sites that hurt your eyes and are illegible, is as undeniably as it is funny.

Still, some of the advice the authors give is simply out of date. For example, they suggest all good designs should fit within 640 x 460. Monitors now very rarely run such a tiny resolution. Making any site smaller than 800 x 600 wastes space and forces the user to either click more links to find your content or scroll more, neither of which eye movement tracking studies show users are readily willing to do. Some other signs that the guide is dated are the acceptance of frames. Frames have largely gone out of vogue in the design techniques of "Web 2.0" designers (don't ask me what web 2.0 is, other than contemporary design). They also seem to accept the dominance of tables in design. The best modern design no longer touches tables, and even mediocre design is beginning to use less of them. CSS deserves some recognition (even if my template for the final project uses tables for the layout - www.missouri.edu/~mjv2dc/finalproject). I also disagree that links need to always be underlined. Using a different color for text links has become an alternate convention.

A lot of the general tips still ring true, though. Gaudy designs or designs that show off while making the content less accessible will always be bad designs. Text lines should always be reasonably short (the rule I hear used is 12-24 words per line).

Dated or not, I do enjoy me some good and bad design.