1. Elements of Online Readability John E. McEneaney, Oakland University Session 8.13/9.13 - December 1, 2000 National Reading Conference Scottsdale, AZ

2. 1.content and legibility 2. bounded local content 3. link semantics 4. ratio of links to nodes 5. global coherence 6. metaphors and navigation 7. display semantics 8. system state Elements of Online Readability

3. 1. Content and Legibility Thesis: Digital literacies subsume elements that operate in traditional print. The Problem: Print does not “translate” well. (Scrolling, resolution, and visual fatigue) The Solution: Recreate “print” in a digital format designed for hard copy. Examples: Science & Technology, ACM Digital Library, Electronic Journal of Oncology, Stanford Technology Law Review, ROL

9. 2. Bounded Local Content Thesis: Content presented in a hypertext node should be locally bounded. The Problem: Indirect reference to content in other nodes puts readers at risk. Solutions: Write for redundancy across nodes and link where repetition of content is too costly. Example: “An Annotation to Structure of the Web”

11. 3. Link Semantics Thesis: Predictable and judiciously embedded links promote readability. The Problem: Unclear or unpredictable links can confuse and frustrate readers (e.g., new windows, internal/external, colors, etc.) Solutions: Develop and/or use conventions that establish a clear link semantics. Example: Learning on the Web, Hypertext History, SandSoot (WordCircuits), Deena Larsen (Eastgate)

16. 4. Ratio of [embedded] Links to Nodes Thesis: A graph of utility versus # of links in a node is probably parabolic, i.e., increasing to an optimal point followed by negative utility. The Problem: Embedded links can distract readers from content and interfere with the development of clear mental maps. Solutions: Use navigational aids (maps, TOCs, etc.) and embed links only as “required”. Example: Burke Homes navigational maps

20. 5. Global Coherence (top level structure) Thesis: The large scale structure of a hypertext should reflect its content. Helping readers understand structure should help promote understanding of content as well. The Problem: Nodes provide only a limited view of the larger document. Solutions: Use only as many links as you need and provide readers with document maps. Examples: Living Reviews in Relativity, Hypertext History in 36 Nodes

23. 6. Metaphors and Navigation Thesis: Metaphors help readers understand, remember, and predict. They also help readers navigate documents. The Problem: Individual nodes provide only a limited view of the larger document. Solutions: Use a familiar metaphor and provide readers with document maps. Examples: New Mexico State study material, Living Reviews in Relativity, Hypertext History in 36 Nodes

26. 7. Display Semantics Thesis: Multi-panel displays (frames, pop-ups, etc.) introduce powerful new options but increase complexity and risk of problems. The Problem: Managing windows gets in the way, frames shrink readers’ views. Solution: Establish a clear display semantics that alerts readers to panels and their functions, automate panel management. Examples: Astrophysical Journal, Learning on the Web, Neuroscience- Net

30. 8. System State Thesis: The rules have changed: digital text can “choose” to modify the elements of readability in real time. The Problem: The line between developing “reader friendly” and manipulative text grows fuzzy. Reading may take on an adversarial character (i.e., reader vs. text). Solution: Develop and practice etext ethics (e.g., privacy statements, etc.). Examples: Learning on the Web, NRC Database, Turing Text, Amazon.com, etc.

33. Conclusions Content and legibility are still central (1). Text microstructure must be redefined (2,3,4,7). The concepts of macrostructure and top level structure must be reinvented (4,5,6,7,8). Writing and programming are complementary language arts on the Web (6,7,8). Questions... Is the utility of text bound up with its static nature? How up close and personal do we want text to be?