How do users read online?
Kathie's Politech has a link to a book that is quite relevant to our class experience of blogging as a community: Derek M. Powazek's Design for Community: The Art of Connecting Real People in Virtual Places (2001).
I looked at an essay from the book and found some food for thought. For instance, Powazek insists that it's a myth that people don't read online. He's absolutely right.
He also rants against Neilsen and others who advise you to keep paragraphs and sentences short for online reading, saying it "infantilizes" web users to make "blanket judgements about the way all users read, based on the dimmest bulbs in the pack."
In this instance, I think he's missing the point. It's not about stupidity. It's about optics. For most people, it is simply more tiring to read text onscreen and on a printed page.
Equally important, readers typically find it more difficult to visually track text online (follow a particular line of text with their eyes, stop at the end, and then resume reading at the beginning of the next line without losing their place).
That doesn't mean people won't read online, but it means we should adapt the formatting of online text to make it visually accessible. That is entirely different from dumbing down the content.
In other words, it's a matter of common sense to break up big blocks of text into more easily scannable and trackable short paragraphs. Note that Powazek himself follows this practice, writing mostly very short paragraphs one, two or three short sentences.
Now, to give Powazek his due, Neilsen and others DO claim that most web users, in addition to preferring shorter paragraphs (for reasons of optics) also prefer less text when reading online. In other words, Neilsen insists that text written for the web should be about 50% shorter than the same communication written for print.
Here I would say that both Powazek and Neilsen are right. It's a matter of audience. As Powazek himself rightly observes, "Why not just talk about each site's particular audience?"
If your goal is to publish an influential blog for an audience of thoughtful, well-informed political insiders, intellectuals, and activists, the length of your posts is not as important as their quality.
If, however, you are producing a website for a political candidate, and you fail to provide a short, no-frills summary of the candidate's positions (in addition to detailed information), you are hurting both your candidate and the voters.
Powazek argues in favor of "writing that might even require your readers to think for more than a passing moment". While some users may welcome being "required to think" when they visit a website, not all do.
In particular, if you are writing for the general public, make your online writing accessible to the many people who want information, but do not happen to be avid readers. After all, according to a U.S. Dept. of Education survey, 48% of the U.S. population has low literacy. Consider also that many intelligent, intellectually curious, and even highly educated people are dyslexic or have some other difficulty reading large, unbroken blocks of text.
For all these reasons, writing plainly and concisely does not infantilize your audience. On the contrary, it is a mark of respect.
That said, I found much worth reading in the various essays posted on Powazek's site, such as this one on "Breaking the Fourth Wall." Thanks to Kathie for the link.

