How I saved hundreds of newspapers… and won $2000

It all began when I entered a Prototype Newspaper of the Future contest, sponsored by the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association. (Grand prize: $2,000!) Okay, I haven’t exactly won it yet, but my ideas are so cool and innovative that I am sure to win. I doubt that other entries will combine sex, computer-controlled newspaper delivery robots, drugs, and rock and roll. Why, I have so much confidence in my entry, fellow OJR readers, that I am daring you — even double-daring you — to come up with something better.

Idea #1: Sex! Also, cover the future, not just the past and present

Any idiot can write stories about events that have already happened, and even the dumbest, most makeup-wearing TV reporter can bring you “live, on the scene” coverage of events that are happening right now, but only visionaries and psychics can bring you news of events that haven’t happened yet and that, indeed, may never happen at all.

(The contest ad said, “Think big. Think radical.” So I am!)

We all know that the average age of Americans is going up. And recent studies have shown that Americans no longer give up sex once they turn 30. So we already know that one of the hottest job fields in coming years is going to be Geriatric Sex Counseling.

Armed with this knowledge, a smart newspaper will want to have at least two or three certified gerontological orgasmentarianists on staff by the end of this year, in anticipation of this employment trend, instead of waiting for it to happen. Some of the more forward-looking newspapers will probably have entire sections devoted to orgasmentarianism before long, complete with online video instructions in full color made both by staff professionals and volunteer readers with their webcams and camcorders.

A few sticks-in-the mud will no doubt say this is nothing but a way to sell sex. What’s the matter with these people? Haven’t they been watching TV lately? Especially cable? I swear, the tube is full of sex, sex, sex, all the time. Newspapers have fallen behind and need to catch up. Pitching their prurience toward older folks, and cloaking it (and uncloaking it once you click the “I am over 18″ box on the Web site) in educational robes, will allow newspaper publishers to claim they are taking the high road instead of catering to the Lower Classes like that boorish Murdoch person and his soon-to-be-launched weekly “Bare Banking Babes” feature in his latest acquisition, the Wall Street Journal.

Note that what I have done here, in this very article, is write about events that have not yet happened. This is proof that it can be done. And if I — a former cab driver, soldier, electronics technican, and limousine owner — can do it, people with enough degrees to work for modern newspaper chains ought to be able to do it even better.

So go forth, newspaper futurists, and tell us tales not only of what is, but of what will (or at least might) be. We will be waiting to read your words of wisdom with bated breath (or possibly baited breath, if we rely on spellcheckers more than we really should).

Idea #2: Decentralized, customized newspaper printing

This one is simple, and really should be happening already. Imagine small printing units near subscribers homes or even mounted in trucks instead of huge, centralized printing plants. Also imagine newspaper vending boxes that carry paper stock and a two-sided printing head instead of pre-printed newspapers.

Voila! Print-on-demand newspapers. No returns. No waste.

Even better, any reader who thinks Mallard Fillmore is the only funny comic, and complains that all MSM writers and editors (except maybe the ones at Faux News) are libral soshulists, can now have a newspaper exactly to his taste.

I’m presenting this idea in a light-hearted way, but it is not a laughing matter. A truck-mounted, GPS-equipped, computer-controlled newspaper delivery “robot” that printed each subscriber’s newspaper as an individual piece would not be hard to build. It will still need a human driver until motor vehicle laws are changed to allow fully-automated vehicles, and it might be more practical to have small, fixed-base printing units spread throughout a newspaper’s circulation area than to make mobile ones, but the result would still be huge savings in transportation, paper stock and printing waste — and the ability to produce an individually-customized print product would be… dare we say it?… priceless.

Idea #3: Drugs + Rock ‘n Roll = Profit

I have a total of seven prescriptions, five of which are for drugs I take daily to control my Type 2 Diabetes and high blood pressure. The other two are semi-optional pain relief and mood alteration meds that help me cope with neuropathy and the stress of nicotine withdrawal I am currently enduring due to my recent decision to stop smoking after nearly 40 years of cigarette use.

I can get all kinds of dry, physician-type information about these drugs with a few search engine clicks. But if I want to know how they’ll make me feel…. nada.

Newspapers run movie reviews, book reviews, concert reviews, and theater reviews. I often rely on The Washington Post’s Stephen Hunter for movie-watching decisions. I don’t always follow his recommendations. But after reading his reviews for many years, I know his tastes well enough to know which movies he likes that I will like, too, and — just as important — which ones he doesn’t like that I will.

Why don’t newspapers review drugs the same way they review books and movies? It might be a little hard to have one reviewer test everything from Xanax to chemotherapy treatments, so this is a perfect place for community interaction. My wife, a mild hypochondriac, is not much of a newspaper reader, but if our local paper started running pharmaceutical reviews I’ll bet she’d check that page religiously. She might even contribute to it. So would many of her friends. Wow! A whole new newspaper audience niche! And a whole new set of advertising sales opportunities, too, since the pharma companies would be all over this in a heartbeat.

Add reviews of local doctors, hospitals, clinics, chiropractors, faith healers, and other health care providers, and you’ll have a whole daily section so full of high-value ads that newspaper company shareholders will weep with joy.

Then add free music downloads from local rock bands — and hip hop and grunt rock and reggae and classical and jazz and other kinds of groups and performers — and there would be yet another new audience segment a forward-looking newspaper could glom on to. The Washington Post has an online area where local musicians can upload their work and readers can download it for free, but it doesn’t seem to have been updated since September, 2006. It was a very cool thing that was way ahead of its time when I first saw it in 2002.

Now, of course, local radio has been all but merged out of existence, leaving only Murky Channel-type junk in most media markets, which means newspapers have a golden opportunity to become the primary source of new local music for the local masses. Many papers already sponsor local musical events. This is just a more sophsticated way to do it. In fact, musc downloads could help publicize concerts, and concerts could tout the download service. Synergy to the max!

The 2017 Prototype Newspaper of the Future Contest

In the year 2017, if newspapers are still alive, they’ll be robot-delivered, custom-printed, and Web based. And they will face competition and challenges we can’t even imagine today.

Well, maybe we can imagine some of those challenges…

  • Implanted RFIDs with direct neural conductivity will be all the rage. Tomorrow’s digerati will sneer at old fogies (who are today’s young hotshots) and say, “You mean you still get your news from the Internet? On a computer? Eww!”
  • With direct neural connections, Smell-O-Vision will finally become reality. So will Feel-O-Vision. Instead of just watching a football game, you’ll be hooked directly to the players’ own nervous systems. You’ll be right there in the huddle, smelling the Quarterback’s sweat. And when the player you’re hooked to gets tackled, “I feel your pain” will no longer be something funny the first President Clinton once said. Instead, you’ll feel pain so real that you’ll be curled up on the floor, sobbing, as you clutch your broken ankle.
  • Porn is going to be amazing in the world of Feel-O-Vision. Teledildonics will be one of America’s hottest growth industries. Progressive newspapers will start hiring porn reviewers. But they will no longer have book reviewers because hardly anyone will still read anything except tech manuals — and by 2017 most tech manuals will be videos on disc, produced in Vietnam or Alabama (India will be way too expensive by then), not old-style paper books.
  • It will be no problem outsourcing virtually all reporting to lower-cost countries because we’ll have security cameras everywhere so remote reporters can see everything. (They’ll use remote-controlled reporter robots to cover places where there are no permanently-mounted cameras).
  • At some point, there will be a scandal over “altered” feelings in a Feel-O-Vision newscast. The Online News Association will hold many roundtable discussions about the ethics of modifying FeelFeeds (which is what I think we’ll call direct neurological hookups) and whether audiences should be linked to soldiers as they die in the Endless War that will still be going on in Iraq.

The one bright spot in all this is that beginning journalists will no longer need to send resumes to thousands of newspapers, TV stations, and FeelFeed outlets in order to break into the field. There will only be one news company, and an artificial intelligence based on the (by then) late Rupert Murdoch’s brain will control it. Journalists will either work for this company or will be forced to find another line of work, which will make life simpler and easier for almost everyone.

- 30 -

Copyright 2017 by the Online Journalism and FeelFeed Review, published by the USC Murdoch School of Journalism. All rights are held by the Murdoch School of Journalism. No one — not even the author — may reprint, retransmit, FeelFeed, quote or even discuss this article without express permission from the copyright holder.

OJR's 'five guide' to do-it-yourself website usability testing

You’ve put months of work into a special multimedia project. The time-consuming processes of creating and editing text, audio, photos, video and animated graphics has been arduous, but rewarding. You’ve learned more about Flash programming and debugging than you ever intended. And now that there’s an end in sight, you are more than ready to get the package online and out of your life.

Enter the spoiler — the person who utters the words “usability test.”

“Why bother?” you think. The site works, you know that. You’ve been showing it to your newsroom colleagues along the way. You’ve listened to their feedback. You’ve made changes you thought were necessary. What more could you learn?

What more? How about 80 percent of the problems with the package? How about architecture flaws you never considered? How about the differences between a good design and a great one?

As the article Technology’s Untanglers from July 8 New York Times reports, “Sometimes there is a huge disconnect between the people who make a product and the people who use it.” Usability testing is vital to uncovering the areas where these disconnects happen. Its value and power shouldn’t be underestimated in the e-commerce world or in the multimedia journalism storytelling world.

But it has to be done right with a methodology that works and takes into account a journalist’s tight deadlines. That’s what this column is about. Today we’ll provide you with a template that makes usability testing less daunting. All you need to do is:

  • recruit FIVE people

  • set aside FIVE hours (that’s total time, start to finish)
  • follow the FIVE steps described below.

FIVE PEOPLE

It is important to realize that when done correctly, usability testing with five people can uncover 80 percent of your problems, as demonstrated in the chart below by usability guru Jakob Nielsen.


Jakob Nielsen’s chart from his March 19, 2000 Alertbox Column. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html

Moreover, usability testing is the difference between good design and great design. As we’ve said in the print world for years, if the presentation is aesthetically pleasing, but the user can’t find the information, then the design is useless. This concept is even more important in the world of Web design where clicking to a new site is even easier than finding a new magazine or newspaper.

What exactly will this accomplish?

That’s up to you. A properly executed usability test of your multimedia package or Web site can reveal answers to whatever you design the test to ask. However, in most cases it will uncover three key things:

  • Areas of confusing navigation. There is no doubt that as the project designer, you know how your site navigation functions. You know the “Part Two” menu option brings the user to a particular story or audio slide show. But does the new user know this? It is important to realize that about an hour into designing your project, you may have lost all perspective on how the interface appears to others. This also holds true for your colleagues who have been looking at the project as you have been creating it. You all have learned your navigation; you have conditioned yourselves to go where you want. But for others it may not be so easy and intuitive. You need to test and see.
  • Users’ intuitive viewing sequences. Again, this is an area that designers tend to have in mind and follow as they work on or show the site to others in the newsroom. A usability test can reveal if others will follow what you intend.
  • Roadblocks in the flow or delivery of information. Not everyone in your target audience may know that the e-mail for the reporter is at the end of the text or that the panoramic photograph moves when the arrows on either side are clicked. What seems normal and natural to the creator is not always so with the user.

FIVE HOURS

What! Who has that kind of time? Although it may seem daunting, think about the hours you’ve already put into the project. If simple changes you make can help the user actually understand the project better or more completely, isn’t it worth it?

The testing method outlined below is a combination of suggestions from technology experts, journalists and usability professionals and is created especially for the busy multimedia journalist. It not only focuses on issues specific to the types of site or package designs we do, but it also takes into account newsroom deadlines. So from start to finish it should take one person about five hours to get solid usability data about your package. Here’s the breakdown:

  • 30 minutes to meet with project team and determine key questions

  • 30 minutes to add your specifics to the basic pre-and post-surveys provided
  • 30 minutes to recruit test subjects
  • Approximately two and half hours to test five people for 20 minutes to a half hour each.
  • 30 minutes to analyze data
  • 30 minutes to summarize the results and create a task list.

This testing is leaner and more streamlined than an expensive one designed by a usability firm, but it has been put to the test by my design students on award-winning multimedia news packages as well as journalistic Web sites for the past three years and has delivered valuable data each and every time.

Before you start….

  • Check your ego at the door and separate yourself from your creation. If you don’t think you can do this, have someone else on your team handle the testing. No doubt you have an emotional attachment to this project that has consumed you for the past months. That’s only natural. But objectivity is necessary to get test results that will make your project even better. Be sure you want the real answers.
  • Realize the limitations of the information you are gathering. Usability tests can reveal valuable information about a particular project, but the results should not be misconstrued as pertinent to all Web presentations. Here is where that number five (in terms of test subjects) is too small and your test design is too specific. The test results are helpful for the project you are testing. When you do another project, you’ll need to do another test.
  • Know it is OK to ask for feedback. As journalists we have been trained to NOT go back to sources and show them stories beforehand. Remember that this is different. We are asking an uninvolved group (not the story sources) to do what they normally would do with a Web package. Then we are taking that information and improving the site. It essentially is another step in the information gather process.

FIVE STEPS

What follows are the basic steps and considerations for creating and executing a test on your multimedia news package.

Step 1: Determine tasks to test Call a meeting of the project team and:

  • Review. Remind everyone of your target audience and site goals.

  • Choose tasks. Determine at least ten (but no more than 15) tasks that you a user should be able to successfully execute to get the most out of the package. Remember, you cannot analyze the entire presentation. Carefully select tasks based on what actual users of the site would do. These could include items such as finding and playing an interactive game you created, watching the audio slide show through completion or navigating the site in a specific, preferred order. Here’s a good list of questions to help.

Step 2: Experimental design Although there are multiple ways to design a usability test, we are providing you with a basic design that has been proven to work on multimedia news packages. As you become more experienced in testing you may want to deviate from this outline, but we strongly suggest you follow it exactly your first few times.

  • Welcome, complete informed consent and pre-experiment questions. It is important you do your best to put users at ease by thanking them, offering them a cup of coffee, or just chatting with them for a few minutes. Remind them that it is the multimedia package that is being tested, not them. You then will want users to read and sign an informed consent — where the experiment is explained for the test subjects. This is necessary to ethically complete this inquiry. Finally, you will want to have them complete the pre-experiment questions that you will develop in Step 3. Time: 5 minutes

  • Free observation time. This is a time when users explore the site with NO interaction from the tester. You simply direct the user to the site and step back. The only instruction should be for users to “Explore the site for as long as they would like.” Here is where you can either videotape their behavior or take copious notes. You want to know what users do when just directed to “explore.” Allot 10 minutes total, but if the user tells you he or she is done beforehand, move along. If they are not done at the 10 minute mark, make note of that and tell users it is time to move on.Time: -5-10 minutes
  • Assigned tasks. Using the list you created in the step above, ask users to execute your preferred tasks. Word the tasks so that you are placing users in a natural scenario. For example, rather than stating, “Find the e-mail for the reporter,” say something like, “You have an unanswered questions after viewing this presentation and would like to contact the reporter. How would you go about doing that?” Have tasks ordered and prioritized, skipping over any that were completed during the free observation time. Depending on the user and the task you may or may not want the user to “think aloud” or describe their thought processes to you while completing the tasks. At this point in your testing, either silent observation or think aloud protocols are fine approaches. Do whatever feels most comfortable to you. Time: -5-10 minutes
  • Post experiment questionnaire and discussion. There are two parts to this stage in the process. First, have users fill out the questionnaire you will develop in Step 3. Once complete, it is time for open-ended questions that are answered in a conversation with you.

Step 3: Develop questions There are four printed forms you will want to have ready for each test participant:

  • Informed consent. Necessary for ethical completion of the study. Sample here.

  • Pre-experiment questions. The purpose here is to give some context to the results and help you understand the Web practices of your test subjects. As the sample form suggests, you want to have users quantify their responses and word questions so that the subjects’ personal interpretation of the answers is minimal. For example, instead of asking a user to describe their Web usage on a scale of 1-10, with one being none and 10 being heavy, it would be better to ask them to quantify the amount of time they spend online and provide choices such as 0-2 hours/day, 3-5 hours/day, etc. You also may want to ask questions that gauge the participants’ interest in the subject of the presentation you are testing, or the Web site your work for. Make this a written questionnaire. A sample can be found here.
  • Post-experiment questions. You will want to administer a written questionnaire once the tasks are completed. This questionnaire should gather subjective data, and should contain quantifiable inquiries, asking users to rank the success of certain aspects of the site. A sample can be found here.
  • Interview questions. Finally, plan a few open-format interview questions to ask each participant at the end of the session. These should elicit more overall, qualitative impressions of the website. You also may want to ask participants what they recall about how the site functions. If they clearly recall the structure, you can bask in the glory of your success. If not, you may want to consider where clearer labeling or directions may help. Users should not write these responses. You should allow them to speak freely and take notes. A sample can be found here.

Step 4: Gather data The order of data gathering is outlined in Step 2 above. Here are items to consider before you begin with the first test subject.

  • Test sooner rather than later. No multimedia designer wants to make changes to something they believe is in its final form. Schedule your usability test in the beta stage of development — not quite finalized, but final enough so someone can navigate the site.

  • Do not test your newsroom colleagues. Anyone already familiar with the project does not represent your typical user. In an ideal world, test subjects are recruited through a marketing research firm, but — for the busy newsroom journalist — this probably isn’t possible. So go to other departments. See if someone in ad sales, circulation or marketing (who doesn’t know about the project) can spare a half hour to be tested. See if a friend or relative of a colleague can come in. Bottom line, try to make your test subjects as close to typical users as possible.
  • Test everyone on the same computer, in the same location. This will standardize the results and not allow people’s bookmarks or other preset browsing options interfere with results.
  • Know what you are looking for during the free observation period. Carefully observe each session and take notes about the participants’ interactions with the site. Which tasks were performed successfully? How long did they take? Did participants make errors? What problems occurred? Did the participants have a conceptual model of the site? Was it correct? It can be helpful to have a checklist for yourself during this time, so you observe the same behaviors with each participant.
  • Pay close attention to the steps users take to complete tasks. You want to discern the path that is clear and most natural for users when completing tasks. Ideally they all will complete tasks in fairly predicable ways. But if they do not, you can learn something by the “mistakes” they make. How do they recover? What page of the site do they go back to as a “home base” or starting point? Again, you may want to have your own checklist to refer to here.
  • Try to be as unobtrusive as possible. We know… you feel like an elephant in the room when observing someone viewing a website. But awareness of your body language and your non-verbal reactions to the users’ behaviors can make a huge difference in terms of their comfort. It will take them some time to get used to your presence, but once they do, they will become more relaxed and their behaviors will be more realistic and natural.

Step 5: Analyze data and make list of potential improvements

Now the fun starts — seeing what you have learned. Again, take things step-by-step:

  • Average all quantifiable responses. Break down the number of men vs. women, the average age of participants, etc. Be sure the demographics match your target audience. You also will want to average the answers to all questions that involve rankings. Place all this data on one sheet and make notes of responses that fall to either extreme.

  • Look at the free observation notes in light of the quantifiable data. If users ranked navigational controls as weak, what behaviors during the free observation period support this? Can you find similar behaviors that would contribute to this ranking? Were there any non verbal cues that indicated their frustration at during a certain process? Sighing? Trying to click off the site? Gather as much supporting data for each ranking
  • Look at the success/failure to complete usability tasks in light of the quantifiable data. Again, go back and see what common behaviors were exhibited by the users when asked to complete certain tasks. Did they become confused at the same points? Did they all sail through certain tasks? You will discover that their site rankings will correlate with their experiences completing tasks.
  • Make a list of at the top three things that should not change and the top three things that should. You are on a deadline, we realize that. So be sure to make note of what is working and why. Write down the top three things you did well based on this usability test. Then make a list of three manageable changes to make.
  • Look at user suggestions for improvement in light of the changes you need to make. Your users aren’t designers or interface experts, but their gut reactions can help you determine where to put your professional energies. See what they said they want and find a design solution for it. Again, keep things manageable. You aren’t going to fix everything, but you are going to tackle the top three you listed in the step above. Do everything you can to address the problem areas, and — if possible — check in with the users and show them the solution.

BOTTOM LINE

Usability testing is a skill that — just like design and programming — you improve the more you practice it. Once you’ve done this a few times you’ll find you can use it on the fly when you get into those disagreements about interface design issues within your department. At UNC, we resolved a design issue on a project in Chile this past March. We were working with students from Universidad de los Andes and could not come to a consensus on our secondary navigation. So, we did a quick usability test with audio reporters and photographers who were in the newsroom, but who had not been involved in the design process. What we found was that the design team was split over two equally ineffective navigation methods. It forced the team to rethink at a more basic level and resulted in a much improved solution.

So remember, that person who suggests usability testing isn’t the spoiler, but really your friend — and the friend of your audience.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Don’t Make Me Think
This is an excellent book by Steve Krug. It should be on the desk of every multimedia news designer.

Step by Step Usability Guide
Part of the site usabilty.gov, this diagram is a good visualization of the testing process.

Usability Testing Guidelines
This piece provides a simple tutorial for a general usability test and includes some insightful tips.

Navigating slide shows: What do people choose when every choice is possible?

During the month of May we rented the Tobii eyetracker to conduct a variety of studies about online news design decisions. Different designs for displaying “breaking news” and supplemental links were tested. We also looked at three variations of New York Times story level pages (the difference was the intensity and variety of supplemental information links available.) All three of these studies need some time to digest the data (from both the eyetracking behavior recorded and the survey responses by the participants.) They will be reported on in later columns.

But as a little “add-on” study, we asked 34 of the people who did one of the other tests to also take a look at the Washington Post’s “Cuba by Korda” slide presentation.

Image

We were interested in seeing how people decided to navigate through this package which included every possible option for moving through the slides.

There was a thumbnail view:

Image

You could click on an arrow next to the photo to go forward or back. Or you could use the “Next” button.

Image

There was an “autoplay” option that let you change the speed of the slide transitions.

Image

Or you could click on the individual numbers lined along the bottom which would reveal a thumbnail of the image associated with that number.

Image

We had a number of questions about use of this complicated navigational suite.

  • Given all these options – which one(s) did the user select?
  • Did one navigation style result in more complete viewing of the images?
  • Did people move linearly or non-linearly through the set of slides?
  • Did one navigation style result in more complete reading of the associated narrative?

    With this study we simply sent people to the site and asked them to look through the package as they would if a friend had sent them the link. There were no instructions about how long to look, just to go through the site until they had had enough. We did not ask them any questions about the experience or their preferences, we just recorded their eye-movements on the screen. Here’s what we found in an analysis of the eyetrack recordings:

    Navigation choice

    Of the 34 participants, their first navigational choice:

  • Next 19 (56%)
  • Numbers 8 (23%)
  • Arrow 5 (15%)
  • Autoplay 2 ( 6%)
  • Thumbnail 0

    11 of the 34 switched between two different navigation methods, and 3 of those 11 used three methods (not repeating any of them.)

    Of the 19 that started with the “Next” button:

  • 13 used “Next” the entire time
  • 4 used “Next” for an average of 7 slides then went to autoplay
  • 1 went to the thumbnails, looked at a few, then clicked on numbers
  • 1 clicked on numbers

    Of the 8 that started with the Numbers

  • 7 clicked through the Numbers the entire time
  • 1 went to “autoplay” after clicking on five numbers

    Number of slides viewed

    The average number of the 40 slides in the package viewed by those who used one method the whole time:

  • Next – 28 (70%)
  • Arrow – 25 (62%)
  • Numbers – 12 (30%)

    Nine of the 34 participants viewed all 40 of the slides – all of them started with the “next” method of navigating the slides. Seven of those nine used “next” the whole time, the other two went to “autoplay” to view the rest of the stack.

    For all the participants – the average number of slides viewed was 23.

    Time spent

    The average time spent with the slide show package was 2:55. The longest time was 8:17 (a young woman of Hispanic background – carefully read all the slide information). The shortest was 0:48. With these outliers removed, the average time spent was 2:49.

    For people who stayed with one method, here’s the amount of time they spent with the slides:

  • Next – 2:34
  • Arrow – 3:31
  • Numbers – 2:16

    Linearity

    One of the possibilities in designing online presentation is the option of moving through material linearly or non-linearly. Two of the navigation options facilitated non-linear exploration of the material – the “numbers” and the “thumbnails.” No one started with the “thumbnails” and of the eight who started with the “numbers” half of them clicked the numbers in order (linearly), the other half clicked around in random order. Of the half that clicked linearly, the average number of slides viewed was 20.75. Of the half that clicked randomly, the average number of slides viewed was only 6.5.

    Reading

    We viewed all the eyetrack recordings to see whether the participant read the related text about each slide.

  • Eleven (33%) of the participants carefully read the slide text
  • Sixteen (47%) skimmed or read the text sporadically
  • Seven (20%) did not look at the slide captions

    There was no predominant method of viewing the slides that resulted in a more careful reading of the text. Of the eleven seen as carefully reading the text, 4 used the “number”, 3 used the “next”, 3 used the “arrow”, and one used “autoplay”

    Observations

    In terms of practical advice, this observation of navigational methods use makes clear that if you can only have one navigation method – the “next” method, moving linearly through the set of slides is the one to use. It was the primary choice of the majority of the participants and resulted in viewing the most slides.

    However, if amount of time spent with the story package is your primary goal, people who clicked from slide to slide using the “arrow” spent almost a minute longer than the “next” users.

    The reason for some of the other observations (for example, why no one selected the “thumbnail” view as an initial navigation method and why so few (2) selected autoplay) is not known – we did not ask people about their choices (or about their possible confusion about the choices.) This would be an interesting project for a future time – to do more of a “think aloud” session about people’s navigational choices. But this observational study does provide some insights into the choices made by people faced with a variety of methods for navigating to through rich and deep slide shows.

    But perhaps the most interesting observation was the very low level usage of the non-linear approach (and when it was used, how few slides were observed.) Is the linear orientation to looking through material so hard-wired into our media usage that it is, and will continue to be, the preferred way to take in media? Even when it was visual information – as this was – and did not logically need to follow a narrative thread – people preferred to move through in the order it was presented. What does this observation tell us about innovation in digital storytelling and our audience’s tolerance for new design paradigms.