Multimedia package: Fat kids

Journalists find local examples of a widespread problem, then personalize the issue. This is a time-honored method of sharing information, of course. Even the classic stories of ancient Greece taught the listeners something — but people listen because the story is good, and not because they are eager to be taught.

The Roanoke Times took this approach to the issue of childhood obesity in an online package, now a finalist for the 2007 Online Journalism Awards. The package, Off the Scales, features three print stories prominently in the center of the graphic.

(You’ll notice the graphic is too wide and runs off the right edge of the screen. It’s also too tall for most viewers to appreciate the animated weight scale that disappears off the bottom edge. I’ve discussed this size problem before.)

I like the graphic treatment, and anyone who attended primary school in North America will recognize the decorated bulletin-board theme — it reminds us of our earliest schoolrooms. I’m not enamored of the sound effects and the sliding scale, but what bugs me most about the initial arrival experience is that the video begins playing automatically, including the audio. This of course becomes very annoying as one returns to the package front again and again — the same audio repeats and repeats. (Aiiieeeee!)

The usability of this package could be improved — in ways that MOST such packages could be improved. I’m a little surprised that so many people in journalism are still designing packages that have the same old flaws we saw in 1999: “mystery meat” rollovers, frustrating redundancy, and emphasis on text stories that are not even part of the package.

“Mystery Meat” Rollovers

Making new stuff appear, or pop up, when the mouse rolls over something is one of those cool Flash tricks that can be used for good or for evil. “Mystery meat” refers to the familiar school-lunch staple, a slice of something meat-like that contains who-knows-what.

In this graphic, we see five photographs pinned to the bulletin board. When we roll over one of those, we see the label “Photo Gallery” pop up. Okay. Another photo is that annoying video that keeps playing over and over. We can see that it has a Pause button, so at least we can stop it every time. Okay. But what about the other three photos? What do they do? It’s a mystery, unless we click them. Do you think people really want to just click randomly on any old thing you give them?

Part of the problem is inconsistency within the package. There’s a business card pinned at top left. Roll over that, and it opens up to show a bunch of new information. But the business card pinned at top right does not behave the same way. Roll over that, and it does nothing. You would have to take the risk of clicking on it to find out what it does.

Redundancy in Navigation Choices

Near the top, under the title, we are given seven navigation choices. These choices are relatively clear, but all of them are duplicated elsewhere on the graphic. In other words, you can get to the same thing in at least one other way on the same screen.

This redundancy is so common, I guess a lot of people think it’s good. As a user, I am driven crazy by it. Why? Because I keep opening a thing that I had already opened. In combination with the mystery meat, this just kills your story — the visitor to your package starts to feel like she’s traveling in a circle and arriving again at the same place.

If your mystery meat is so unclear that you have to add a navigation bar, you have a problem with the usability of the whole package — and you ought to fix it. In other words, redundancy is a sign of bad design choices. It’s a tiny bandage on a big injury.

Prominence of (External) Text Stories

If you only wanted to show off the text stories that ran in the printed newspaper, why would you spend the time and effort to create an interactive package for the Web site?

First, the people who already saw it in the newspaper will immediately be disappointed when they view the package online. They will have to seek out the “extra” bits. Second, people who never saw the printed version will open the text stories online — because these are given such great pride of place in the graphic layout — and might well lose interest before they ever try any of the interactive elements.

I want your package to draw me in and capture my attention, just like a Greek storyteller of old, who began with brave Ulysses and then held the people in thrall with nothing but his voice.

The way to draw me in online is not to show me a long text story, with no line spaces between paragraphs, serif type and ragged indents. That was good for the print medium, where the writer’s expertise with words served as the hook to catch me. It does not work the same way on the computer screen.

The attractive graphic package front is a good hook, but it’s not sufficient to reel me in if the first thing I happen to click takes me to a holdover from another medium, print.

I’m not saying you have to leave out the text stories altogether — but they must be de-emphasized in this kind of package, so that the visitor to the page will not only bite the hook, but also swallow it.

Related Posts

I have already written about nine of the 11 ONA finalists in the “Outstanding Use of Digital Media” category:

• (Sept. 24) Multimedia package: The murder trial
• (Sept. 20) Multimedia packages: Organizing 30+ pieces
• (Sept. 17) Multimedia packages: Music journalism
• (Sept. 15) Thoughts about the ONA finalists