I was reading a great article about the difficulties that news-media outfits — predominantly print publications — are having updating their sites with video and interactive elements that are on par with the quality of their print work, and it got me thinking about the general problem print pubs have with creating a great online experience that matches the quality and aesthetic of their off-set printed publications. Andrew Blum brings up that it’s easier for start-ups, which I suppose makes sense in an un-pondered, logical sense, but why, really, would it be easier? There are plenty of long-standing print publications that have made pretty wonderful transitions into the web world. Why do so many news sites have horrendous design and layout? Why the hell aren’t they fixing it, when many of them have pretty large financial backing?
He revolves a bit around Monocle, a “stylish international affairs magazine,” who have a wonderful little website going. It captures a mood that’s somewhat elusive on the web, even by some television companies, and keeps the site clean of that muddled, way-too-much-information-at-once look that plagues so many news publication sites. It helps that the mood of the magazine itself was carefully thought out, and probably built in tandem with the site’s web presence, which may be what Blum was implying when he stated that it’s easier for start-ups. However, I think it’s less the simple fact that it’s a start-up, and more that it’s directed by people who actually care about the online presence.
Publications like The New Yorker or Harper’s are just now realizing that they need to tweak their online presence if they want any large internet-based readership, which is quickly becoming as important as the print devotees. They’ve even redesigned their websites, but it wasn’t quite what was needed. It’s not just about adding a new skin, it’s about uprooting the safe zone they’re hiding in and restructuring the entire site. Sites like Scientific American and New York Magazine are great examples of creating a sleek, professional looking online presentation that supports and enhances the content. What allowed Monocle, Scientific American and NY Mag to get there had everything to do with the companies, and the designers within, realizing they can’t cling to print design methods to create a great website. It can’t just have a header that matches the logo-type, with some similar colors and a medley of grids. It has to be carefully planned out and diced up for the online community to digest comfortably and gleefully. Blum touches on this: the idea that the old print shackles must be broken so the interwebs can be embraced.
I don’t think adding high-quality video and flash will make up for low quality of design. Design should come first, with added functionality, like HD-Video following suit. If no one wants to navigate through and read the text on your website, which is what its basic function should revolve around, why would they go there for your videos? An interesting thing to research is whether Monocle, SA, NY Mag and other successful print-to-web pubs went to outside sources for the web design and development, and if The New Yorker and Harper’s stayed in-house. Could it be that keeping the web design in-house fosters that “don’t hurt my baby” instinct that many designers possess, which cuts off options before they’re even presented? Maybe that’s it. Maybe it’s just difficult to let go of their precious baby. That makes sense. Eventually, though, you have to allow it to grow, and sometimes that means others have to come in and help teach it what else is right and wrong. It needs to go to web design school.
Posted by Ben Paddock