3.Browsers prefer glancing over an article rather than reading it thoroughly. So, it’s better to break up your content into heads and subheads, and summarize the basic content in through them.

This is always assumed to be true as a generalisation, but it isn't as the inference is that the audience doesn't have the desire - or the ability - to digest great tracts of information.

Ultimately, and of course, it depends on your target audience and what they are seeking for. Great segments of users are searching for information with quality and depth - research or business papers and articles, for example. Most academic research work is reproduced online with no concern for on-screen issues such as readability. Instead, you just get pages and pages of endless text and, if you're lucky, a flow chart or two to help break it up!

Yes, breaking content down into shorter chunks - via the use of subheads or page design that allows sufficient white space in and around texts - will increase on-screen readability, but shorter chunks does not mean that your visitors only have the ability to digest small amounts of data.

I recall a scientific study done among young people in the USA a number of years ago, which set out to determine whether it was true that they - the 'kids of today' - had much shorter attention spans than previous generations. The outcome was that young people brought up in an online world had the ability to process data faster than had been thought.

It wasn't that they had short attention spans, it was that they had consumed the data that much quicker!

Readability as a design concern is one thing, but it should not always be at the expense of depth and quality of information.

Syzygy

Readability as a design concern is one thing, but it should not always be at the expense of depth and quality of information.

I have to agree with that. You hear that advice about skimmability and that's all fair enough, but every time a visitor takes the time to contact me or comment, it is always in response to an in-depth article that covers the subject in great detail. Of course, I try to make it skimmable with bullet points and bold where possible, but sometimes it's just a long text.

If you offer something unique that covers the subject better than anyone else, the users who find you will be greatful and will read it as carefully as they need to in order to get the information they seek.

As with any writing, don't make it any harder for them than need be, but don't make it superficial in the name of readability.

Thanks for your valuable observation and expert comments. I agree with what you said. But what I wanted to convey is that there are 2 types of readers- 1) the research scholars and business people as you have pointed out and 2) those who are looking for quick information on web.

Yes, quality of content matters to all, but it is the researchers and business people who look for detailed information. But in my thread I have talked about those looking for quick information, and going through the heads and subheads serve their purpose because heads and sub-heads are said to contain the summary of the main content.

So, I think, readability matters as do the depth and quality of content.

Regards
Monalisa

[edited by: Monalisa at 6:02 am (utc) on Dec. 22, 2008]

"Interactive language" is the language which is directly addressing the reader, be he a research scholar or a common man or a student so to speak. Reading an interactive contant, the reader would feel as if the content is written for him and the writer is talking to him, giving him the information he needed, solving the queries he had. An advertising content is often written in interactive language. Reading such a content the reader is convinced about the products being advertised, get to know about the benefits the product has, and the importance of using particular product. This could also be written in a very formal language with grandiloquent words, elaborate rhetoric and and decorative details. But a simple language and communicative style is more acceptable to all category of readers. But it has to be noted that more than interactive quality, informativeness is what matters.

Regards
Monalisa

For example, sometimes I want detailed information whilst at others a brief overview of a subject will suffice. Sometimes the short snippet of information serves as the basis of a new search that will lead me to more detailed information.

Just yesterday, whilst in discussion at home, the question was raised: what does the name Emmanuel mean? It should be pointed out that we were listening to Christmas carols, not watching the soft-focus films from the 1970's!

My starting point was to use Google's define: modifier. This brought up a series of results of which one provided the required explanation. A click or two later and by skimming across the subheads we had found out the answer we had sought and a bit more besides. Great - instant information of the type you're specifically talking about.

Just the other day though, I was doing a bit of research into an obscure and long-forgotten musician from the 1960's. Here my searches were for information with detail and depth. Most, if not all of the information I gleaned came from reading a number of related articles from diverse sources. Scanning subheads helped in focusing my attention, which of course, is their purpose. But, it was by spending time reading the texts that I found the information I sought.

My point is that depending on my needs I can be both types of reader. This is true of everyone who comes a-visiting.

Whether you as site and content owner choose to cater for both types is, of course, dependent on what you're looking to achieve from that content.

Syzygy

[edited by: Syzygy at 11:01 am (utc) on Dec. 22, 2008]

The exception is Seth Godin, but his popularity is based on his books and his blog is more a question posed than an answer given. He tries to provoke thought, not provide detailed information.

Readability as a design concern is one thing, but it should not always be at the expense of depth and quality of information.

In my sector (travel), there are countless Web sites cranking out shallow "destination guides" that have about as much information as an old article from THE WORLD ALMANAC. Such "broad but shallow" sites may work well for attracting contextual ads, but they don't provide the kind of in-depth information that the reader who's planning a $5,000 trip to Elbonia or a $10,000 cruise in the Widget Sea is desperate to find.

On a more personal note, when my printer developed a paper-handling problem a month or two ago, the site that got my attention--and my money for a repair kit--was a site that had detailed information about the problem and its solution. I was highly motivated to read that information, since I needed to get my printer fixed, and the depth of information on the site convinced me that (a) I could make the repair myself, and (b) I could trust the site's owner to provide the kind of detailed instructions that would enable me to make the repair.

Another example that comes to mind is the leading digital-photography review site, which (like several of its competitors) may spend a dozen pages or more on each camera review. The site has become so successful that Amazon.com bought it a while back.

If Joe User is looking to rent a DVD from Netflix, he probably doesn't need a ton of information. But if he's trying to research a trip to Slobovia, make a decision about laser eye surgery, or make a decision between a Steam-N-Hete or a Warmco boiler for his heating system, more information is better than less. That doesn't mean the information can't be organized for easy reading (e.g., with multiple pages, subheads, photos, and a reasonable amount of white space) but the misguided notion that Twitter should be the role model for Web content needs to be smacked down once and for all.

In my sector (travel), there are countless Web sites cranking out shallow "destination guides" that have about as much information as an old article from THE WORLD ALMANAC.

This is interesting since everything I have ever read about your industry is that it is super saturated with writers and extremely competitive. How do you create quality content against the giants like Frommer's or Rick Steve or others that seem to crank out good content and now have the marketing muscle to push it to everyone for nice fees?

Yes, I do agree with you that a single person can go through an article with the mind the of a researcher and also as a mere on-looker. It’s absolutely depend on what type of information he is seeking. Is he searching for details or just minimum information on the topic will suffice his requirement? If you are willing to have ample information on a topic, you will scan through each and every line of an article, but if you need only short-cut information, just as you searched for the meaning of Emmanuel, only a glance over will do.

But my point is that heads and sub-heads are not to be ignored. They have importance. Heads and subheads are the synopsis of the detailed content under them. They are thought-provoking. Going through the heads and sub-heads, the browsers get to know what is there in the content. Heads and sub-heads urge the browsers to read the content in detail.

Regards
Monalisa

Syzygy

Unlike print, I believe it important to have title [for head] with keywords and - ideally - pithy summary of article. Should help with boost in search engine results; but also useful in places where people might see this title, maybe with little else. Such as in search results, where good title might help entice people to visit article.

Skimming readers n brief points vs long text reminds me of advertising: where I've read from Ogilvy and others that people will read long text, but again good to have sub-heads.