I intensely dislike websites that use this style. All style, and no content. It takes you 3 minutes to get to the bottom of the page; and once you do, you reali

I intensely dislike websites that use this style. All style, and no content. It takes you 3 minutes to get to the bottom of the page; and once you do, you realize that you have about five-sentences-worth of actual information. That being said.... The New York Time is regularly running mixedia long-form journalism that intersperses scroll-bar-driven media with text. I'm not sure how much. Maybe one or two articles a week. The mixed media can be quite elaborate: animated graphs, video, diagrams with incremental annotation. I'm not entirely sold. But I can't help admiring what they're trying to do anyway. My read: that they are consciously trying to create a new vocabulary for presenting text-based information on the web. The general style is as follows: four or five paragraphs of text, and as you scroll down, you encounter islands of animated media that are driven by scrolling. An example: a series of pictures, with annotations that appear sequentially explaining what your seeing. Or a graph, again with sequentially appearing graphs and annotations. Some articles are more successful than others; but I will grudgingly admit that most of the animation sequences are worth about 1400 words. Compare that to the web mockups on that page, where an entire website is worth about 36 words.