Sorry for the long delay in replying. I’ll try to be more responsive. But thanks for the input all the same.
JE Smith - 20 February 2008 12:34 PM
Things I like: cleaner look, much less cluttered, easier to use.
Things I don’t like: a little vanilla-looking.
I’m all about the vanilla at this point. The goal in this design is to be more extensive for future editing and faster server responses. That isn’t to say its permanent though.
JE Smith - 20 February 2008 12:34 PM
The “headline” feature at the top of the page doesn’t tell who the writer is. I make most of my click-through decisions based on who the writer
is, and I’d like to know.
Good point. That will be added in later this week. Credit should go to writers for their efforts.
JE Smith - 20 February 2008 12:34 PM
The “Summary” line is no longer bold or set off in any way. This is confusing, as it now looks like the first line of the review, which is rarely if ever the writer’s intention. I like the idea of the Summary line, and enjoy using it in my reviews, but it HAS to be set off in some way from the rest of the text, or the reader doesn’t know it’s a summary. If it’s not set off, it shouldn’t be there at all (though I’m in favor of retaining it).
Here is my problem with the summaries (and this is a reflection on both the editors and the writers perhaps): our summaries are very poorly written. I see two word summaries and that’s it. That isn’t a summary and isn’t even worth the effort to distinct it from the main story.
In reality, we need to have TWO summary fields. One for the leading story on the front page and the other for the story page. Summaries are a big factor in leading the reader to the story.
For the front page, the summary needs to offer enough explanation but compel the reader to WANT to read more. The story summary is a basic introduction that makes a good set up for continued reading.
I don’t see that even being attempted here.
What’r your thoughts?
