On a little ramble through the interwebs I came across this great article about the possible future of comments on blogs. For me, a big part of the appeal with blogging, is the interactive nature of comments. Of course then I found this recent attempt to improve the nature of comments very intriguing.
Does it stop there though? Oh no! In true form I ended up clicking through further and discovered some further interesting ways of managing my blogs comments. InstenseDebate and Discus are third party providers of commenting systems that offer a comprehensive means of managing your blogs comments.
So in the spirit of independent learning, I have gone and added Discus to my blog, and now I eagerly await new comments to see how my shiny new system works.
Care to help me with my learning? :)
Showing posts with label Concept. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Concept. Show all posts
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Module 3 - WWW Standards
This current module regarding WWW Standards and usability has thrown up some very interesting reading courtesy of Jakob Nielsen and ultimately raised a few more questions for me.
As tasked, I read through through a large chunk of the related material on Nielsen's website Useit.com and also went trawling through the other recommended readings at Dennis Jerz's site and a good piece at Web Style Guide. While there were a few discrepancies between sites, all concurred on what could be described as the principals for writing on the web. I found that these principles could be broken down into the following points.
* Write scanable text - Use highlighted keywords, bulleted text and meaningful sub-headings.
* Reduce the word count - Reduce the overall words used in your writing.
* One idea per paragraph - Keep your paragraphs simple.
* Use simple langauge - Avoid marketese, write for a broad audience.
* Utilise an inverted pyramid writing style - Conclusion first and then expand from there.
I found Nielsen to come for the internet marketers angle. While I believe his theories and studies still hold some weight, his approach is to that of the conversion of readers and visitors to your site into sales of your product. The question which I feel this raises is: Are these approaches applicable to Web 2.0 social internet, blogs or opinion pieces? Does all web content need to be broken down and made scanable to be successful? If so, I think the web would be a much duller place to visit. Fellow Net11 student Kieth makes some interesting further observations about this point in his own blog.
So yes there are times where having the information scanable is pertinent, and I have taken away some very good tips on making my own writing more readable for the net. Yet still I find that if I have found an interesting and well written piece, it will engage me regardless of if it's chunked down with bullet lists and concise headings. The net is a constant and changing place. Making it more usable is not a bad thing, but at the sake of content, opinion, thought, interaction. That's not the internet I want to experience.
What about you, what kind of internet do you want to experience?
As tasked, I read through through a large chunk of the related material on Nielsen's website Useit.com and also went trawling through the other recommended readings at Dennis Jerz's site and a good piece at Web Style Guide. While there were a few discrepancies between sites, all concurred on what could be described as the principals for writing on the web. I found that these principles could be broken down into the following points.
* Write scanable text - Use highlighted keywords, bulleted text and meaningful sub-headings.
* Reduce the word count - Reduce the overall words used in your writing.
* One idea per paragraph - Keep your paragraphs simple.
* Use simple langauge - Avoid marketese, write for a broad audience.
* Utilise an inverted pyramid writing style - Conclusion first and then expand from there.
I found Nielsen to come for the internet marketers angle. While I believe his theories and studies still hold some weight, his approach is to that of the conversion of readers and visitors to your site into sales of your product. The question which I feel this raises is: Are these approaches applicable to Web 2.0 social internet, blogs or opinion pieces? Does all web content need to be broken down and made scanable to be successful? If so, I think the web would be a much duller place to visit. Fellow Net11 student Kieth makes some interesting further observations about this point in his own blog.
So yes there are times where having the information scanable is pertinent, and I have taken away some very good tips on making my own writing more readable for the net. Yet still I find that if I have found an interesting and well written piece, it will engage me regardless of if it's chunked down with bullet lists and concise headings. The net is a constant and changing place. Making it more usable is not a bad thing, but at the sake of content, opinion, thought, interaction. That's not the internet I want to experience.
What about you, what kind of internet do you want to experience?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
What The Hell Is Wetware?
Finally completed reading the Module One intro and I cam across the the term 'wetware'. This isn't a term that I have come across before so I thought it would be good to record, and of course share.
I feel the use of the word presents an interesting point in this context as it acknowledges that the internet is not just made up of hardware and software: it also requires squishy, irrational humans to exist. Seems kinf of obvious I know, but at times I think people forget that the internet in all it's glory, still requires me and you to function.
I feel the use of the word presents an interesting point in this context as it acknowledges that the internet is not just made up of hardware and software: it also requires squishy, irrational humans to exist. Seems kinf of obvious I know, but at times I think people forget that the internet in all it's glory, still requires me and you to function.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)