The opening didn't look good there were a lot of short sentences and white space, and the meaningless bulleted lists were so much like the 948652th iteration of content-free corporate Powerpoint drear that it made my head hurt. Also, I took that first sentence as something of a challenge. Still, maybe humor lurked within, and down I scrolled--there was no point made on the first page of the exercise, after all, but it wasn't like it was hard to read. I skimmed screen one, and hit page down.

The really unforgivable sin of online journalism is explaining things through links. My rule: if the article doesn't make a point that I can decipher without clicking the blue text, then it's almost certainly not worth following through with it. The use of hyperlinks is a wise way to provide an opportunity for the reader to verify content, and can provide some sidebar information that doesn't necessarily fit in the article. The benefit of link text is that it's unobtrusive. Nothing makes me less likely to follow through than requiring me read the linked material. It advertises that even the point you're trying to make is borrowed, and that you have little to say by yourself. I got to asked to read Prof. Nielsen's column, and instead I skipped to the comments.

I actually don't think the article's bad (or rather, it's not a bad idea), but like any writing, you have to consider what you're trying to communicate and to whom. The tricks you used tell me that you, the writer, must distill things to as colorless and flavorless a profile as possible in order that I, the common reader, may digest your learned wisdom most easily. Your style tells me me that you're angling to penetrate the maximum number of dull minds, and are uninterested in what discerning readers may think. It's trying to draw in quantities of readers, not caring about what they think particularly. Maybe you upped the respect for us by the end of the piece, but I didn't stick around to find out.

I agree. I did read the entire article, but it was a chore. Also, I couldn't agree more pertaining to links. I almost never follow them, as I found they make me lose my train of thought as I have to dig through yet another page to try to find a nugget of information that relates to the original article.

That was actually pretty hard for me to read, visually. I skipped the bulleted lists. Also, there is no need to use bullets when you only have two items on the list. Ditto you guys on the hyperlinks.

Slate's got this new thing where they bury content down two or three layers of links in from the front page. This Convictions blog of theirs is especially annoying that way, even worse when the headliner turns out to be a 150 word blog entry, which is what happened those two times I bothered to dig in. Others have noted that they're using two-page articles now, sometimes for no apparent reason (other than increasing the number of pageloads). It really disrupts the read.

And yeah, if you do click away, it's especially annoying when the point of doing so is not immediately clear.

[Boy, I sure mashed up my first couple of sentences in the top post. Good thing I don't get paid for this.]

I couldn't agree more about the Convictions blog. Click, no, you're not there yet, click again, no not yet, OH here it is -- crap, it'll take an hour to read this, I wonder what's on MSN news?

Keifus:

Others have noted that they're using two-page articles now, sometimes for no apparent reason (other than increasing the number of pageloads). It really disrupts the read.

To add insult to injury, they include a "View as one page" (or something like that) link - at the bottom of the first page. What do I gain at that point by clicking on it? I'm going to end up back at the beginning of the article, when it's actually easier to just click on the link to page 2. These chances may be generating more pageviews, but they are also generating increasing annoyance among readers who will soon vote with their keyboards for sites that don't stoop to such tricks.

I did find it ironic that the article, which lists "having a link open in a new window" as one of the top ten web design sins, opened - in a new window.

Actually, they do pull you back down to the end of the first page when you click "View as single page", but you have to let it load first. This is a feature I haven't seen on many other sites. I do wish they would put the single page button at the top of the article though. I rarely use it unless I'm on a really slow connection or the article is more than 2 pages.

Ha, thanks for the info, Amykate - I was assuming they'd start at the beginning again. Still, it sort of makes the feature pointless doesn't it? I too wish the link was at the beginning of the article where it would be useful and have even emailed them to request it, to the sound of crickets chirping.