Comments on: How is writing for the web and print different and how do you explain it? http://www.newmediabytes.com/2007/11/14/online-web-writing-vs-print-writing/ Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:09:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Shawn Smith http://www.newmediabytes.com/2007/11/14/online-web-writing-vs-print-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-293 Shawn Smith Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:48:23 +0000 http://www.newmediabytes.com/2007/11/14/online-web-writing-vs-print-writing/#comment-293 Thanks Eric. Good points and great doc. This might be perfect to pass along to some of the papers I work with. I know you're familiar with my org's model, which makes using docs like these perfect to get the message out, since we're not in the newsrooms most of the time. ps - do you think the Knight DMC would post those videos on brightcove or something else that is more easily watchable than downloading a huge file? I'll have to ask them. Thanks Eric. Good points and great doc. This might be perfect to pass along to some of the papers I work with. I know you’re familiar with my org’s model, which makes using docs like these perfect to get the message out, since we’re not in the newsrooms most of the time. ps – do you think the Knight DMC would post those videos on brightcove or something else that is more easily watchable than downloading a huge file? I’ll have to ask them.

]]> By: Eric Ulken http://www.newmediabytes.com/2007/11/14/online-web-writing-vs-print-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-283 Eric Ulken Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:59:12 +0000 http://www.newmediabytes.com/2007/11/14/online-web-writing-vs-print-writing/#comment-283 Shawn, you may not want to skip over that "general standards" part entirely. Many of us are evangelizing in newsrooms that are still coming to terms with their role on the web, and I think short and scannable aren't necessarily self-explanatory to everyone. I recently gave a <a href="http://www.knightdigitalmediacenter.org/seminars/agenda/20070930_journalism_in_a_24_7_world_decision_making_for_the_online_editor/" rel="nofollow">presentation</a> on writing for the web with Rachel Nixon of BBC News, and I got a sense that some in attendance were still trying to get their newsrooms to deliver something other than a duplicate of the print-edition story and headline. The accompanying handout (<a href="http://www.knightdigitalmediacenter.org/resources/msword/200710Jour247-Ulken.doc" rel="nofollow">Word Doc</a> or <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Y4PwIQtpUYIJ:www.knightdigitalmediacenter.org/resources/msword/200710Jour247-Ulken.doc" rel="nofollow">HTML</a>), which Rachel put together (and I made a token contribution to), might make for good ammo in newsrooms that need some prodding. (What's surprising even to me is just how short "short" means at the BBC -- often no more than 200 words.) Shawn, you may not want to skip over that “general standards” part entirely. Many of us are evangelizing in newsrooms that are still coming to terms with their role on the web, and I think short and scannable aren’t necessarily self-explanatory to everyone.

I recently gave a presentation on writing for the web with Rachel Nixon of BBC News, and I got a sense that some in attendance were still trying to get their newsrooms to deliver something other than a duplicate of the print-edition story and headline. The accompanying handout (Word Doc or HTML), which Rachel put together (and I made a token contribution to), might make for good ammo in newsrooms that need some prodding. (What’s surprising even to me is just how short “short” means at the BBC — often no more than 200 words.)

]]>