Movies & Entertainment: A Comparison (Assignment One)

This post will look at three major movie websites – Rotten Tomatoes, Ain’t It Cool News and Urban Cinefile – to compare and contrast their strengths and weaknesses in web writing and accessibility.

Rotten Tomatoes (RT) is a well-established movie and entertainment website which has different “versions” depending on your country (for example, I viewed the “au” version of the URL by default). The homepage has great navigation, including simple links to forums, movies, celebrities, DVDs and top upcoming and new release films in Australia.

The articles are professional but not too serious in tone. Headlines and kickers are pragmatic and direct, often simply a list or statement of the content – for example, one article carries the heading “Critics Consensus: Inglourious Basterds is Certified Fresh!” with subheading “Plus, Shorts, Post Grad, and X Games 3D: The Movie come up short”. Most articles encourage audience interaction, with one example ending, “Let's save the bickering for the comments… and work our way up through the 10 best-reviewed movies of Brad Pitt's career”. The language in general is simple and “catchy”, allowing the conversational tone preferred by Internet users, as papers by Dube and Nielsen have discussed. Additionally, as Lynch and Horton have found, the use highly descriptive headlines and kickers also makes keyword searches simpler for search engines.

Promotion of stories from the homepage is largely done with pictures and graphics, with “Today’s Features” and “What’s Hot” scrolling past on an interactive banner. Teaser images are accompanied with headlines and kickers such as “25 Movies to Get Excited About in 2009: As we head into the final stretch of the year, we count down the best movies on the horizon…”. Lists of movies – the box office listings, newly released films and upcoming films – are visible from the homepage on the left navigation bar, letting users simply click on a film title to get a wealth of links of critical reviews. A toolbar with “Related Links”, including pictures, posters, news and forums about the movie in question, is accompanied by “Related Articles”, “Most Discussed”, “Latest News”, “Latest Interviews” and “Latest Features”.

Other internal links are well signposted. In the articles, links are attached to almost every name, including directors, actors, movies and critics. These are coloured blue, which both highlights keywords and also helps users access more information - two aspects that are important in web writing according to Nielsen. Keywords are also listed and linked at the end of the articles, including the celebrities and movies featured and even mentioned in the article. The site's forums are heavily promoted, with comments and message boards linked throughout the site as a key part of user interactivity.

External links abound. In the “News & More” links, only three out of the fifteen links displayed were “RT News”, with the rest being to external sources. This gives a great sense of credibility to the site, since as Nielsen's paper suggests, "Links to other sites show that the authors have done their homework and are not afraid to let readers visit other sites". External links open in a new window, which implies a concern with keeping people on the site, but may also assist in navigating to the comment section on the Rotten Tomatoes website for each story. Rotten Tomatoes could improve the many older reviews which are unlinked or have broken links, but overall, the site has very few navigational issues and is an impressive example of web writing.

Ain’t It Cool News has a lesser visual impact in its homepage. While its use of cartoon graphics makes the site look distinctive, the over-large fonts and busy graphics can be distracting, and the list of stories are not broken up by pictures or any visual cues, making it difficult to skim the page. The search function is present but not obviously placed, which is a drawback for such a busy homepage, as Lynch & Horton suggest that users can be overwhelmed by too much information.

Like Rotten Tomatoes, the AICN articles again utilized long, descriptive headlines and kickers, such as “Quint chats with Terry Gilliam about THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, WATCHMEN, Pixar, Ledger and much more!”. Stories are often very short - for example, some articles I found are simply a quote and a link. In keeping with Dube's endorsement of conversational Internet writing, AICN has an even more down-to-earth style than RT, with the reviews more reminiscent of a blog rather than an online newspaper. Authors are known by nicknames, and the use of colloquialisms – such as expletives and frequent use of the first person – is common, as in this example.

Cross-promotion is not as well exploited in AICN as in Rotten Tomatoes. Stories on the homepage are listed under headings such as “Top News” and “Latest News”, but are mainly ordered by date, with reviews, news stories and trailers all listed together. “Top Talkbacks” are listed to the right of articles, but there are no links to earlier related articles or discussions on the story’s topic, which is a drawback as researchers like Nielsen & Morkes found that particpants enjoy following links to more information.

Internal links are also relatively infrequent. Reviews, interviews and stories are generally plaintext, with only a link at the end to contact the author and possibly to find a related story. Keywords tend to be in all capitals, which assists the visual setup of the page, but does not provide any parallel information through links. Like Rotten Tomatoes, comments are a big part of the site, with “Talkbacks” (or article comments) and “The Zone” (message boards) visible and promoted.

External links, like internal ones, are relatively rare. Many of these links are to Variety sources or The Hollywood Reporter - at random, I quickly found three examples by Hercules, Quint and Merrick. This implies some reliance on a few main sources of information rather than the greater diversity that Rotten Tomatoes displayed. Links also tend to open up in a new window, indicating the desire to keep users on the site.

To improve AICN, I feel that links and the general visual layout could be reconfigured. Using visuals to differentiate between reviews, interviews and news stories would greatly assist in the Nielsen & Morkes' all-important goal of the Internet: "to find useful information as quickly as possible". Related links should also be better exploited as a medium, since it would help give context to articles and give users greater access and navigation to other information, which Dube also identified as an important part of web writing. The site’s credibility also suffers from the over-personal tone of the reviews which – while often amusing – can seem unprofessional and less authoritative.

Urban Cinefile is an Australian movie website with a punchy black background and clear navigation bar on the left hand side of its homepage, leading to alphabetical search functions for movies, DVDs and other entertainment. Unlike AICN, images are used with text on the homepage for better visual appeal. However, the homepage is quite long with stories added by date and requiring a lot of scrolling, a trait Nielsen identifies as a generally negative quality in web writing.

Headlines are even more straightforward in Urban Cinefile than in Rotten Tomatoes and AICN, often simply stating, “Movie Reviews: Inglourious Basterds” or “Balibo: Insider Briefing”. While perhaps uncreative, headlines like this are clear, informative and incorporate keywords – three qualities that Nielsen's analysis suggests suit it well to the web. The type of article – for example, an interview or news story – is clearly stated in red as you scroll on the homepage, making skimming easy. Articles are written in an inverted pyramid style – for example, a story about the Israeli film festival begins with a rundown on major facts of the festival and the key films, before discussing other lesser films. Reviews also begin with a concise synopsis of the film in bold type, as in this example. The language of articles and reviews is much more professional and less like a blog than AICN, avoiding colloquialisms and use of the first person.

Cross-promotion within the site is visible from the homepage, with reviews often linked to related competitions or DVD reviews of related films – for example, a DVD review of the 1978 Inglourious Basterds film is linked to the review of the new version. Stories with straightforward headlines are simply listed on the homepage without overuse of graphics or flashy gimmicks, with a synopsis and a sample quote from the site’s reviewers. Internal links are few, with reviews and stories again mainly plaintext. Reviews benefit from having movie information – such as the running time, director, scriptwriter and release date – listed on the right of the story, but these are not linked. Most stories only have one or two additional links which are clearly signposted but few in number. There are no “related stories” or similar listings, which is also a drawback since there is often a lack of context for reviews and interviews as Dube argues. While a forum is part of the site, it is not heavily promoted, suggesting that the site could improve its interactivity.

External links are few. Reviews are largely done by one or two internal staff, with only occasional references, which contrasts with the many reviewers that are listed in RT. An external link is sometimes used to add context to news stories – for example, a story about a controversial fishing film at the Tokyo Film Festival was accompanied with links to an anti-dolphin hunting site, interviews and a review of the film. There could be more of these, however, to bolster credibility and give greater context to news stories, as Lynch and Horton suggest.

Urban Cinefile might benefit from greater organisation on its homepage, to speed navigation for busy Internet users. The search function could also be improved and placed on the homepage, instead of being a separate page on its own, for easier navigation.

In my opinion, Rotten Tomatoes is top of the heap in this analysis, followed by Urban Cinefile and AICN. As the Internet continues to evolve, it can only be hoped that sites like these do too!

Social Networking: Friend or Foe

Facebook: it's a noun and a verb. No one knew what it was 5 years ago, and now many people (me included) barely go a day without using it.

In "Why I Welcome the Decline of the Twittering Classes", a recent article in the Guardian, Jackie Ashley discussed social networking sites -- particularly Facebook and Twitter. According to an Ofcom report, young people -- ie. 15-24 year olds, which would take in many of us at uni -- are using Facebook and Twitter less, while 25-34 year olds are using it more. Ashley welcomed the decline of cyber culture among the young, and argued that social networking "friendships" were a poor substitute for a "real world" friendship, since:

"Reality takes second place to a life in which you become the star of your own dull movie, and the director too."

When everything you do is mediated by technology, are you living your life, or just commentating on it?

There are a MASS of comments on this article. Many of them are really hilarious (I recommend you have a skim), and most are negative, but I'm going to put it out there that some of what Ashley said struck true with me. While I am a Facebook tragic, I get uncomfortable with the idea of my entire life unfolding online, and with iPhones making updates even easier, I think everyone knows at least one person who seems to live only for updating their status. It's kind of a worry. 

The publicity of Facebook can also be a worry, where "[i]f you are very unlucky, your worst moments, which would once have been private, told in whispers to a single best friend, can end up on YouTube". Recently, I had the experience of seeing a workmate's relationship break down ON Facebook, in a status update, with all my work colleagues there to read and comment. The potential for humiliation & too much information is always there.

On the other hand, Jackie Ashley is being very conservative on this issue, and also betrays a lack of understanding. While I know a few people who "meet" others through Facebook, the majority of my friends and acquaintances only "add" people who they know. For Ashley to criticize Facebook on the basis that it doesn't provide real relationships -- that "you cannot have a full human relationship without being in the presence of the other person" -- is silly to say the least. 

For me, Facebook is a companion to my real-life relationships, not a substitute. I may see a friend at work or at church and can comment to them about a status update they made or a video they posted, and often this enhances and forwards the friendship. Facebook is also fantastic for long-distance friendships, where an email might be strained but contact can still be maintained in a less formal setting. 

Communication is communication, whether it's on the Internet, through a letter or face-to-face. To say that interaction between people isn't genuine simply because it's online is pretty crazy.

What do you guys think? What do you use Facebook for? Do you think online relationships count as "real" relationships?

Online Classrooms... Virtually Reality

VIRTUAL REALITY... it started off primitively in games like two-player Mario, and slowly became socialized in programs like The Sims, instant messengers and chatrooms. Now it's an Internet phenomenon, with whole online communities being set up & peopled by folks all over the globe.

Second Life is one such site. To be honest, I've never used it myself, since I don't tend to network online, and I always pegged it for a social networking site.

But a heap has been written about other possible uses of Second Life -- especially virtual classrooms. Gregory Lamb described in an article how Harvard University set up a Second Life classroom, attended by the students' respective avatars, for its "CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion" class. Some students were even taking the course from China and South Korea.

Suddenly, distance education can take on a new dimension. No longer would a student only be able to interact with their tutor online through email; now, you can interact with all your fellow students. There's also the potential for it being a great leveller. As demonstrated by this article, you don't necessarily have to travel to Harvard to do a Harvard course; anyone with a computer connection has the potential to participate (albeit with the university red tape). How would this affect fees? Would university become more accessible to more people?

And imagine the culture shift. Would we -- if we had the opportunity -- choose to commute to a bricks-and-mortar university every day, or simply go to our computers? Perhaps the advantages of time and cost would tip the scales in the Internet's favor. Having class in more comfortable settings are also an advantage, with students virtually able to "travel" anywhere. (Although the quote in the article of a teacher saying offhandedly that "we can have class with everyone sitting in a [virtual] hot tub" kind of freaked me out.)

And as an American, I'm also particularly interested with how this could affect the culture in the US, where travelling interstate for college is the norm, and to live on campus as soon as you hit university is the first great milestone of a person's independence. Would this change?

I can't say I'm fully in favor of online classrooms, above real ones. For me, virtual reality is more virtual than reality, and I'd much rather be with people face-to-face than with an avatar.

But if Second Life can make university accessible to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go, or act as a substitute for some classroom situations, then I'm all for it. It will be interesting to see how learning changes and whether Second Life and similar virtual classrooms will take off.

What do you think? Would you attend a virtual class? Do you think it's a good idea?

Editing for the Internet

"Research by Jakob Nielson and John Morkes indicates that Web users do not like long, scrolling pages; they prefer the text to be short and to the point"

... so the good news is, everyone's blog should be short this week. Just putting it out there. *wink*

Thought I'd share a couple thoughts on this week's readings. These guidelines are a shining light to those who are tired of websites that look like a MySpace page with pink text, a green scrollbar and a background that doesn't seem to move even when you scroll up and down making you dizzy like one of those 3D pictures you're supposed to stare at.

LINEAR PROSE

Lynch & Horton say, “A collection of links cannot create or sustain an argument or deliver a collection of facts as efficiently or legibly as conventional linear prose”. Something that I don't really think about in web writing is how linear/not it is. Since I've (and most of us have) grown up with the web slowly developing around us, it's easy to assume that websites are still just copy+paste text that could well be from books... since, back in the day, often it was, seriously.

"Linear prose" -- ie. books and printed, sequential text -- has the advantage over web writing for me, so I agree with Lynch & Horton. As we've seen from the readings, web writing is (ideally) short & sharp, with many specific pages for bits of information. Your information is in individually-packaged compartments, and there's no end to the possible pages you might or might not visit. It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure.

But books are different. You can flip around a book, but there's always an established order of chapters and pages. The medium is set in sequence and has a specific context -- which the web definitely does not (see Lynch & Horton).

So "linear" argument -- like reading a book or a chapter from beginning to end -- is very difficult on web pages, for two reasons: (1) Complex information needs to be broken up on a website, or the pages get too long and don't get read anyway. (2) People skim & flip around. Very few people go to a website to check out every page, in order, like you're reading a thesis. Ie, from Bowles & Barden, "Editors must think of each story as a package of separate components and structure the package with hypertext links that readers can choose to follow or ignore according to their own needs or interests" (p.42 of the reader). There are of course journal articles online, which may be an exception, but even so those are basically scanned documents which you could buy in hardcopy, you just happen to be reading them online. (Feel free to disagree)

For me, the web is great for introductory or quick information, but I still feel a lot more respect for information in books. Maybe I'm old school.

Which brings me to the big, cliche question...

ARE WE DUMBING DOWN?

The readings repeatedly emphasized that text needs to be "short and to the point", since "Web users do not like long, scrolling pages" (Bowles & Barden, p.40 of our reader). 

I can understand this. Everyone hates scrolling for miles down a page, and it's important to use the medium you have in the best possible way. The Web is a medium for efficient, quick, easy information.

But it also sounds like we're just not wanting to pay attention any more. What if the Web becomes the main source of information for everything? Will we never get an in-depth Web site? Are we going to go into 1984-type speak?  I know these types of concerns are in no way original or novel, but it's food for thought -- especially for our class, since many/most of us are involved in publishing or communications courses. Is the Internet having an adverse effect on us?

What do you think?

First post!

The first post of a blog newbie... welcome, all :)