By Marcie Barnes(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Writing for Digital Media at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This week, I will be reviewing enn.com and making suggestions based on our readings.)
enn.com is a good place to get environmental news. But does it pass the white glove test when scrutinized for possible problems? Let's find out. (added, trying to be less arid, add a hook.)
Navigation
The navigation on enn.com is clear, there is a prominent green bar running just under the banner/logo at the top of the page. I found it (deleted "It's") easy to tell what section I was visiting (deleted "you are currently in") because the section I (deleted "you are" and "currently") visited turned darker green and a little slider arrow moved to serve as a visual marker of where I was. (deleted "that part"). This navigation bar was consistent on each page I visited, so I always knew where to go if I wanted to move around.
Clicking on the banner/logo brought me back to the home page, which is good practice. The search box is placed well – near the top right – where many tend to look for it. Search results came up quickly and were organized by date, most recent first. I imagine an advanced search would be helpful for many users as well, that feature is missing.
Page Layouts/Site Organization
The pages are well balanced, and the elements on them work well together. I found my eye always going to the most important story first, and so on. Good balance keeps the reader's eye from bouncing about aimlessly and eventually bouncing away, much like in an erratic game of "pong":
(added.) This site is well-organized, again, with clear navigation and placement of different items where the typical reader would expect to see them.
Consistency
There is a nice, consistent feel to this site. The lead story in each category is always in the same place, below that is a long list of other (earlier) stories to read, and below that a spotlight, commentary, and member press releases are always anchored in the same spot regardless of what page I was on. The advertising placement is also consistent, albeit a little prolific, on this site.
Because this site is a compilation of articles contributed from a variety of sources, subtle things such as tone and voice (below) and style do vary from article to article, but that is expected in this format. [Before: One thing I did notice, however, is that sometimes the full article is published on this site, and sometimes I have to click through to the source site in order to finish the story. I personally would prefer to stay on the site I’m on, unless I choose to go to the source site for more information.]...[After: I did notice, however, that sometimes the full article is published on this site's server while sometimes I click and am sent elsewhere. Good practice would keep readers on the original domain at all costs, and in order to avoid confusion. A link to a "source" site would be welcomed in case readers need more information.]
Tone
There is an intellectual and professional tone to this site: it is cleanly designed and gives off an air of authority in its design. In addition, the headlines are published with their source information underneath which really helps with credibility.(added.) Conversely, (deleted "However") the advertising takes up too much real estate on this site for my tastes, and the text ads embedded within the articles (described further in the hyperlinks section) make this site appear too commercial (deleted sales-ish), which may put off (deleted "may be a put-off for") some people.
Consistency
There is a nice, consistent feel to this site. The lead story in each category is always in the same place, below that is a long list of other (earlier) stories to read, and below that a spotlight, commentary, and member press releases are always anchored in the same spot regardless of what page I was on. The advertising placement is also consistent, albeit a little prolific, on this site.
Because this site is a compilation of articles contributed from a variety of sources, subtle things such as tone and voice (below) and style do vary from article to article, but that is expected in this format. [Before: One thing I did notice, however, is that sometimes the full article is published on this site, and sometimes I have to click through to the source site in order to finish the story. I personally would prefer to stay on the site I’m on, unless I choose to go to the source site for more information.]...[After: I did notice, however, that sometimes the full article is published on this site's server while sometimes I click and am sent elsewhere. Good practice would keep readers on the original domain at all costs, and in order to avoid confusion. A link to a "source" site would be welcomed in case readers need more information.]
Tone
There is an intellectual and professional tone to this site: it is cleanly designed and gives off an air of authority in its design. In addition, the headlines are published with their source information underneath which really helps with credibility.(added.) Conversely, (deleted "However") the advertising takes up too much real estate on this site for my tastes, and the text ads embedded within the articles (described further in the hyperlinks section) make this site appear too commercial (deleted sales-ish), which may put off (deleted "may be a put-off for") some people.
Writing Quality
Again, because this site aggregates (deleted "conglomerates") articles from “a variety of trusted global sources,” the writing is generally solid. However, I did encounter typos and formatting problems from time to time. This commentary box,
which has a prominent position at the top of each page, was overflowing with words. It seems that the editors need to place a character limit on what goes in this box, or redesign it so more characters can fit.
In this article, I found words running together in the lead paragraph. I also wanted to hyphenate “Tree Free” (a mistake passed down from the source site). I’m also not sure what was going on with the extra commas that always appeared just before the source in the byline.
In this article, there was a strange character (box) in the 3rd paragraph and another case of words running together in the 4th. These problems typically didn't seem to exist when I checked out the article on its original web site, so it looks like the editors of enn.com need to do a better job checking the information they post.
Hyperlinking
Words colored in blue are actually links to other pages/articles that support the current article, a style I employ on this blog as well. However, why not use the standard blue underlined link we are all so accustomed to? These non-underlined words probably would not stand out as hyperlinks to many readers.
Double-underlined words appear as “links” that, when hovered over, bring up a small advertisement. One, in the article Sarah Palin's Record on Climate Change, links the word “governor” to an ad that reads: “Artery Clearing Secret from Nobel Prize Winner.” There is no relevance in that. I’m not really sure readers want their text infiltrated with advertisements in the first place, isn’t there enough already? If there are going to be ads literally in the text, at least make them relevant. Another one in the same article links the word “Obama” to donate.barackobama.com – that makes for a relevant link.
Overall, enn.com is still a great place to get environmental news. It is well-organized, well-designed, and easy to use. (moved from former intro paragraph). There are just some things that need to be cleaned up in order for it to be a high-quality site. (added.)
In this article, I found words running together in the lead paragraph. I also wanted to hyphenate “Tree Free” (a mistake passed down from the source site). I’m also not sure what was going on with the extra commas that always appeared just before the source in the byline.
In this article, there was a strange character (box) in the 3rd paragraph and another case of words running together in the 4th. These problems typically didn't seem to exist when I checked out the article on its original web site, so it looks like the editors of enn.com need to do a better job checking the information they post.
Hyperlinking
Words colored in blue are actually links to other pages/articles that support the current article, a style I employ on this blog as well. However, why not use the standard blue underlined link we are all so accustomed to? These non-underlined words probably would not stand out as hyperlinks to many readers.
Double-underlined words appear as “links” that, when hovered over, bring up a small advertisement. One, in the article Sarah Palin's Record on Climate Change, links the word “governor” to an ad that reads: “Artery Clearing Secret from Nobel Prize Winner.” There is no relevance in that. I’m not really sure readers want their text infiltrated with advertisements in the first place, isn’t there enough already? If there are going to be ads literally in the text, at least make them relevant. Another one in the same article links the word “Obama” to donate.barackobama.com – that makes for a relevant link.
Overall, enn.com is still a great place to get environmental news. It is well-organized, well-designed, and easy to use. (moved from former intro paragraph). There are just some things that need to be cleaned up in order for it to be a high-quality site. (added.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment