May 8th, 2007

A few months ago, I told a group of marketers that the reason some people have difficulty understanding social media is the baggage some bring from other media when trying to understand how “digital natives” experience the web. “Your metaphors suck,” is perhaps the only thing I said that day they all can remember. Specifically, I noted that the metaphor of “a page” that we’ve brought from print to the web is a tremendous burden in trying to comprehend the “live” nature of the web — that the web is a place, not a thing.

In his typically insightful and eloquent way, NYTimes.com design director Khoi Vinh today explains how the term page “burdens the digital page with the false expectation that it will share many similarities with a printed page, where a more accurate term might clean the slate.” This, he says, can be a challenge for the designer, as well as the reader or user.

Quote:

“A Web page and a printed page are so materially different from one another that it’s almost ridiculous to use the same terminology to describe them. It’s nearly as counter-intuitive as using the terms ‘episode’ (for a television show) and ‘issue’ (for a magazine) interchangeably. When Web designers think of a page, we tend to understand that it’s a page in name only, and that in fact its true nature is as a container for content, features and behaviors. But the idea of a page has such a deeply rooted connotation in centuries of printed matter that Web novices tend to think of Web pages as simply finite blocks of text and images, with functionality and interactions as only superficial garnishes.

Khoi (nor I, for that matter) is not suggesting the word “web page” be replaced — obviously, it is here to stay. However, there is no reason designers (or the rest of us) need to apply the metaphors of the physical page to the digital one.

(Sidenote: I won’t point to it, but I long-ago grappled with the “episode” metaphor as it relates to magazines. In some ways, thinking of a magazine as “episodic journalism” can be a helpful metaphor for editors and designers trying to understand both the constraints and opportunities of regularly publishing something that reassures the reader with its consistency while surprising the reader with its freshness. Another metaphor for another day.)





They both learned that what happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas.





Nashville’s blogger-friendly TV station, WKRN, is currently telling employees about some personnel changes. The announcements haven’t shown up on the station’s blog hub, but those who keep their ears to Twitter rails are following along.

WKRN’s GM Mike Sechrist, architect of the station’s citizen’s media initiatives, left the ABC affiliate last week and was replaced by Gwen Kinsey. The station is owned by parent company Young Broadcasting.

The Nashville blogosphere, which is highly networked via the service Twitter.com, lit up with this story in real-time. As usual, the impressively swift-scooping reporters at NashvillePost.com were the first “professionals” to cover it.

Quote:

“NashvillePost.com has learned that news director Steve Sabato is parting ways with the station today and a replacement is expected to be named by sometime early next week.”





The following item is from Radio Australia and pertains to an effort in Malaysia to enact legislation to control Malaysia’s bloggers. I quote it here to demonstrate the slippery slope of categorizing blogs as “professional” or “journalistic” or, for that matter, on the basis of “authority.”

Quote:

“A senior Malaysian government minister has renewed calls for a tighter monitoring of bloggers…(Despite) Malaysia’s existing wide range of media controls, Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin …is calling for a system that divides bloggers into “professionals” and “non-professionals”. He says it will give readers greater confidence of a blog’s accuracy as it will discourage bloggers who have “an agenda to spread slander”. The minister has also warned the system will help the government pursue bloggers who violate Malaysian law.

In the U.S. (and probably in Malaysia), existing laws govern personal expression (laws related to libel, slander, decency, copyright, hate, privacy, etc.). I don’t believe there is a need to layer upon those laws another matrix of laws regulating which forms of expression (i.e., individual-owned-blog vs. media-company-owned website) deserve varying degrees of protection and freedom. But maybe that’s just my narrow-minded western point-of-view speaking.