Comment Google Maps Has The Answer (Score 1) 269
On-line newspapers might benefit from the same kind of breakthrough brought
to on-line map websites by Google Maps.
That is to say, MapQuest, Yahoo Maps etc. -- the standard on-line maps for years -- offered very poor map-reading experience. Navigating a region by means of click-driven discrete re-drawings to change map centers and scales is very unsatisfactory, compared to rolling out a large paper map. It's reminiscent of nothing so much as peering at a mural through a keyhole.
The genius of Google Maps is that by caching map information from outside the visible map window border, it is possible to pan/scroll continuously. Re-scaling through that slider seems faster too, although I'm not sure whether that's just subjective. In any event, the ability to quickly pass through a range of centers and scales makes the on-line map reading experience much closer to the physical version, and allows far more information to be synthesized much more quickly.
It seems to me that some of the same ideas could be carried over to newspapers, so as to preserve some of the more satisfactory aspects of reading the paper edition.
For example, when I read the physical paper, I have a lot of information available to help me decide whether I want to invest time in reading a full article. I can read the headline, of course, but I can also quickly scan the first couple of paragraphs, as well as any accompanying photos, graphics, and sidebars. This can all be taken in in a few seconds, leading to a pretty accurate assessment of whether it will be worthwhile to read the full article.
In the on-line edition of a newspaper, on the other hand, for most articles there is only the headline to go on, embedded in the HTML anchor tag. The headline is often obscure. To find out what it means, you have to click, and wait for a re-draw. The psychological threshold for reading an article is higher (at least for me). As a result, I find that I skim the on-line edition far more lightly than I do a physical edition.
The reform analogous to the Google Maps breakthrough would be to supply the newspaper pages as continuously scrollable images, available at various scales. At the largest scale, only headlines would be legible, while text would be legible at inner zoom levels. Clicking on any article headline would result in the individual article being served up as it is now. Pan/scroll would allow one to cross page boundaries.
The resulting experience would be much closer to reading a physical paper, in that much more information is presented to the reader prior to "committing" to read a full article. I would certainly enjoy the NYT much more in this kind of format.
That is to say, MapQuest, Yahoo Maps etc. -- the standard on-line maps for years -- offered very poor map-reading experience. Navigating a region by means of click-driven discrete re-drawings to change map centers and scales is very unsatisfactory, compared to rolling out a large paper map. It's reminiscent of nothing so much as peering at a mural through a keyhole.
The genius of Google Maps is that by caching map information from outside the visible map window border, it is possible to pan/scroll continuously. Re-scaling through that slider seems faster too, although I'm not sure whether that's just subjective. In any event, the ability to quickly pass through a range of centers and scales makes the on-line map reading experience much closer to the physical version, and allows far more information to be synthesized much more quickly.
It seems to me that some of the same ideas could be carried over to newspapers, so as to preserve some of the more satisfactory aspects of reading the paper edition.
For example, when I read the physical paper, I have a lot of information available to help me decide whether I want to invest time in reading a full article. I can read the headline, of course, but I can also quickly scan the first couple of paragraphs, as well as any accompanying photos, graphics, and sidebars. This can all be taken in in a few seconds, leading to a pretty accurate assessment of whether it will be worthwhile to read the full article.
In the on-line edition of a newspaper, on the other hand, for most articles there is only the headline to go on, embedded in the HTML anchor tag. The headline is often obscure. To find out what it means, you have to click, and wait for a re-draw. The psychological threshold for reading an article is higher (at least for me). As a result, I find that I skim the on-line edition far more lightly than I do a physical edition.
The reform analogous to the Google Maps breakthrough would be to supply the newspaper pages as continuously scrollable images, available at various scales. At the largest scale, only headlines would be legible, while text would be legible at inner zoom levels. Clicking on any article headline would result in the individual article being served up as it is now. Pan/scroll would allow one to cross page boundaries.
The resulting experience would be much closer to reading a physical paper, in that much more information is presented to the reader prior to "committing" to read a full article. I would certainly enjoy the NYT much more in this kind of format.
