This article by Constance J. Peterson was very informative. I think the information provided is helpful for people who currently have websites and those considering to develop one. I myself browse on websites, like I'm sure many people do. Pertson stresses the fact that making the headlines on a page have meaning is important. I agree with that because I decide not only whether or not I will stay on a particular website, but also read what it has based on the headlines it features.
Also, Peterson addresses how key concepts and lists play a role maintaing an audience on a website. Having keywords and lists allows the audience to see more of what is actually on the web page. It helps them to locate things easily as well as without having to go through an unnecessary hassel. I found that using an inverted pyramid method of dispalying information interesting. Working with the conclusion first is a good way of ensuring that the audience will read because they will want to know what are the elements that led to the conclusion. This methods draws people in and motivates them to look at more topics and other articles that might be related to what they just read. More importantly, it serves a way of possibly having them become frequent visitors of that website because they now have gained a profound interest.
Furthermore, Peterson establishes a well structured step-by-step method of constructing a website that will appeal to people who browse the web like me. There are some people who have websites that need to be modified and updated. Incorporating these steps can definetly make the difference between having a website people browse and having a website that people actually follow on a regular basis.
Dancing
14 years ago
Am I being too critical, or did you notice that she did not seem to follow her own advice?
ReplyDeleteShe uses this headline: "Scanning and skipping and trust -- Oh my!" and then writes, "Web visitors scan first for headlines, so you should make every heading word meaningful. The Web is not the place for funny, cute, or silly headlines." She also recommends, "The inverted pyramid style is bottom-up. To write this way, start by stating the conclusion. Then build upon the conclusion by summarizing the most interesting and important supportive information. Next provide detail about each important point. Then close with background information." But her first paragraph seems a little awkward with her conclusions working as parentheses around her rhetorical question. Maybe I am being nit-picky, but one of the problems that I have with the web is that anyone with an email address, even former Math majors, can pose as an expert and post a blog about how to write.