3 ms·

Well, they say they researched it: "Yet, all of our research shows people want high-definition images with their stories, instant loading of articles on the sit

by Reedx 9y ago

Well, they say they researched it: "Yet, all of our research shows people want high-definition images with their stories, instant loading of articles on the site, and interactivity." They understand how much more expensive an image and JS heavy site is to develop and host, so they must have good reason to go through the trouble?

gkya 9y ago
Very often institutions decide stupidly, when the decision is made by people that are not domain experts. Also, numbers may lie. If they did not study the same content with interactive and plain presentation, for example. I recall an article on a murder in Iceland on BBC IIRC, it was overtly interactive, every movement on the touch pad causing unpredictable changes to the page, but the content was so interesting that I put up with it.
- dbuder 9y ago
  An example of this is when news sites started demanding you don't run adblock, I spoke to a couple of people in the industry and they all said it was great, I pressed one and they said no one left the site without disabling ad block and reading the article, which I took to mean that they intentionally ignored this metric.
zenhack 9y ago
Without being able to see what research they actually did/scruitinize their methodology, I don't find the claim that they checked very compelling. Humans are crazy-hard to study -- research that's not even peer reviewed is basically worthless.
hdra 9y ago
While that sounds reasonable, I wouldn't bet on it. I have seen too many inane bloat that was implemented simply because the designer/developer/project manager thought it was a cool thing to have or because they read it on some growth-hack thoughtpiece somewhere.
- Reedx 9y ago
  Indeed, that's all too common. It could also be a fluid thing. Huge images and lots of interactivity are in now, but it'll go too far (arguably has) and people may want to swing the pendulum back.

by Reedx 9y ago

gkya 9y ago

Very often institutions decide stupidly, when the decision is made by people that are not domain experts. Also, numbers may lie. If they did not study the same content with interactive and plain presentation, for example. I recall an article on a murder in Iceland on BBC IIRC, it was overtly interactive, every movement on the touch pad causing unpredictable changes to the page, but the content was so interesting that I put up with it.

dbuder 9y ago
An example of this is when news sites started demanding you don't run adblock, I spoke to a couple of people in the industry and they all said it was great, I pressed one and they said no one left the site without disabling ad block and reading the article, which I took to mean that they intentionally ignored this metric.

zenhack 9y ago

Without being able to see what research they actually did/scruitinize their methodology, I don't find the claim that they checked very compelling. Humans are crazy-hard to study -- research that's not even peer reviewed is basically worthless.

hdra 9y ago

While that sounds reasonable, I wouldn't bet on it. I have seen too many inane bloat that was implemented simply because the designer/developer/project manager thought it was a cool thing to have or because they read it on some growth-hack thoughtpiece somewhere.

Reedx 9y ago
Indeed, that's all too common. It could also be a fluid thing. Huge images and lots of interactivity are in now, but it'll go too far (arguably has) and people may want to swing the pendulum back.