ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
ZCom And the Internet I
By Michael Albert at Sep 06, 2010 |
|
A Z Writer recently emailed me to say he really liked the new ZMobile (let's call it ZEasy) version of the site so much he wanted to make it his home page on his desktop machine.
I wrote back that I too used ZEasy as my primary way of accessing the site when traveling - but not on my desktop. He could make ZEasy his home page, even on his desktop, the same way he would any other web page.
The Writer replied that he instead wanted to make his home page the page you see when you click ZNet/ZMag on the ZEasy top page, and he hadn't been able to do that. The page he wanted, for those who haven't tried it yet, has links to the most recent articles from ZNet and ZMag, but has no links for blogs, commentaries, videos, comments, notices, or other parts of the site, though these are accessible from the ZEasy top page, which he wanted to bypass. I had to tell our Writer that for technical reasons the only way users can make a mobile page their home page, was to opt for the full mobile top page.
The Writer added that in his view we should make ZEasy the default that everyone sees as the whole site. We should put a link at the bottom users can click to see the old top page if they want, but people should automatically see the site with less clutter.
I asked the Writer what "clutter" he wanted to help everyone avoid. He said pictures of people and of anything at all, were clutter. Links to blogs, commentaries, comments, and videos were clutter. Links to anything old were clutter. Announcements were clutter. Tools for interaction with users were clutter. Menus to access all that were clutter.
He wrote that he was embarrassed to say it, but he couldn't handle much more then a simple list or links, and he added that there were probably lots of folks like him. He would even like the list of links short, with a couple of items picked out as special and made larger than the rest.
I pointed out that his approach would mean no user would know there was a Sustainer program unless they went digging for it, and ditto for much else the site offers, including announcements of new features, other content, and interactive features, and that hiding all this would be the financial ruin of the site, and, as well, would mean as a default that users would never know there was anything beyond current content.
The Writer replied that he understood, but couldn't we find a financial alternative - and in his view diminished visibility for most stuff was not a problem, but a benefit - after all, it meant less clutter.
What did I make of this, beyond my financial concerns?
Of course each user has certain content they are highly interested in and that they typically leap toward. Each user also has content they don't much care about, but don't find a problem. And finally each user has some content they not only don't leap at, or don't mind, but consider clutter that just taking into account their own ease of use, they would prefer gone. It is true of me, and probably everyone.
So our writer's request morphs into, what if we could deliver to each user exactly what he or she most often wants and never anything felt by that user to be clutter. Wouldn't that be good?
Well, in fact, we can already do that. Any Writer or Sustainer can change the top page to have whatever content they want on their own custom version of the site, and if we could afford it, we would let Free Members customize the site too.
But now I have to admit that we hope that ZCom-ers do not use customization to curb the flow of content so they see nothing contrary to their main interests.
Suppose Joey likes international relations but not feminist content. Billy likes feminist but not international relations content. To give users what they want and be sure they never frown - we would want to give Joey and Billy their priority content and hide from them whatever they don't want. In fact, however, our actual desire is almost exactly opposite that. We want to deliver the content Joey and Billy want, of course, but at the same time we want to raise the odds they will each read content of the sort they would usually ignore. More, we even see the latter goal as in many respects more important than the former.
We want Joey who reads international overwhelmingly, to broaden and pay attention to feminist content too. We want Billy who reads feminist content overwhelmingly, to broaden and pay attention to international content too. Not every Joey every time, and not every Billy every time, but some of each, and sometimes. And if you add economic, political, cultural, and ecological focuses to our priority list - you start to see our conundrum. We want to inspire and facilitate wide and not narrow interests.
More, some users don't incline toward vision and strategy, but only toward analysis of current relations. Other users mostly want vision and strategy and little or no current analysis. We want to give each their preferred content, of course, but the other content too. We want to provide both analysis and also vision and strategy and help folks develop connections to both. And then there is reading or viewing content versus commenting on content, blogging, etc. Again, we want people to diversify and broaden, not to specialize in one aspect or the other. We want to inspire and help people to experiment with what is not their automatic inclination.
What about the web's axiom to give users what users want?
If we sought a maximum number of users it would make sense to deliver content that would make the largest number of prospective users smile and that would make few if any prospective users frown. If we could earmark delivery even more, then we might even want to deliver to each individual user the content that would make that user smile most and not frown at all. If the goal is seeking maximum users, our writer urging us to remove anything anyone might feel to be clutter, has a good point.
Many users may like most material they are already easily able to see elsewhere on many other sites, so that giving it to them doesn't add anything. But with giving users what they want guiding us, being redundant shouldn't deter us. If we have as our aim maximizing number of users, we shouldn't care if we are merely shifting where they view content that they could see elsewhere.
Many users may feel most comfortable with content that conveys what they largely already know. Again, if our aim is only to attract and retain most users, and if providing content users already agree with works to that end, then we shouldn't care if users aren't being challenged and learning much from the site. We should just care about attracting them and retaining them.
You may think I am going to say that in fact attracting and retaining steadily more people depends on challenging them, on giving them content and options beyond what they expect and are inclined toward, and on giving them tools, etc. Well, maybe it does - and I admit I like to think it does - and we of course know that at a minimum it certainly does for some folks. But the point is, what if our ZEasy advocating writer is correct that overall we would get and retain more users with a "clutter minimizing" approach than we get and retain with our current approach? Would we then switch?
We want to attract and retain users, of course, but only as a means to creating social change and thus in a way that enhances the likelihood that they will become involved in or otherwise support efforts at creating social change, as well as become steadily better equipped to do so. We think that that aim implies we should not switch to a more familiar sort of site.
Can we make this logic really graphic?
Suppose ZCom could have a half a million people regularly accessing the site, saying they love it, etc., but only seeing ideas they already know and like, though in doing so they feel reassured and maybe strengthened in their ability to talk about those familiar ideas. We have some anti war, some justice, etc. Suppose to attain that wide user level, the top page includes much less content than it has now, presents the most likable headlines and descriptions much more prominently than others it offers, hides away the advanced functionality, etc. - perhaps it even becomes ZEasy.
In contrast, suppose we could have one fifth that number of total users, and of course they get the material they are most interested in, but they also get a prominent dose of content that we feel is very important to social change including considerable content they would not see otherwise, even including content they would initially deem clutter.
Which scenario is preferable?
If the goal is to maximize users, clearly the first scenario is better. If the goal is changing society - then which approach is better is not so clear.
Suppose we consider as well adding prominent material on vision and strategy and having prominent means of participating in serious ways, and we again ask which scenario is better - the stripped down ZEasy or the full ZCom?
Some people might vote for the ZEasy approach that attracts and retains more people (supposing it would do that) - but I would vote for the ZFull approach that has perhaps fewer people (supposing it did get fewer) - and I would, for irony's sake, quote Lenin for perhaps the first and last time of my life, "better fewer but better," not least because delivering better to fewer is a path to delivering better to more.
Thus, in thinking about the Writer's comment, I found I had three problems with the suggestion that the pared down mobile site should become the desktop site.
(1) Z needs financial revenues and the scaled back approach would drastically obstruct gaining them. Goodbye ZNet, ZVideo, ZMI, and ZMagazine, unless someone picked up the financial loss.
(2) A site seriously seeking social change should not only augment and ratify what the user already believes and pursues, it should challenge, broaden, and deepen other areas of attention that don't come so naturally to the user. It should not only convey data, but also actively prod thought and engagement. It should offer analysis, but also vision and strategy. It should present, but also engage, provide information, but also tools. Since most users never know about content not explicitly linked from a site's top page, if we have something we want folks to know about and access, links from the top page are key.
(3) In any event, regardless of implications for funds and for challenging and inspiring users, how can any one person's taste sensibly guide what is delivered to all folks - and once we realize that different folks have different priorities, isn't the right way to have users get what they want to make clear everything that is there, and to provide means for the user to select what they want - and then, as well, perhaps even customization features?
Some thoughts on ZCom design
By Mäkinen, Joona-Hermanni at Oct 08, 2010 12:48 PM
I've been interested in usability, graphic design, typography, website design etc. for many years now and the whole scene is really contradictory because the way people browse is being defined by commercial interests. People are used to clutter-free websites because usually the whole point of the design is to make you click an ad link, "to help you" make a bying decision or to visit as many pages as possible. With ZCom the difference in goals is huge and I think it's a good point that people should see also new topics, not just something they are familiar with. It's not about consuming information, it's about expanding your horizon, educating yourself and having a place where you can be in contact with people from the left.
I think the decision not to follow the typical mainstream website design orthodoxy is a ballsy one, but at least in my case it has been a good one. 8 years ago I heard about ZNet and started with the latest articles from Chomsky but my interests grew from there, partly because there wasn't some enormous "Featured Chomsky" banner. I think ZEasy is a welcome addition to the regular site, because mobile internet use is surging and it works pretty well, although I would like it to be faster on my phone. ZCom regular and ZEasy together work pretty good for quick article lookups and thorough discovering and social networking.
There are things I would like to change, of course.
- ZCom homepage is totally different by design (links are on the left, doesn't include the whole navigation from other pages) and thus the navigation between ZCom and other pages is a bit confusing. It should emulate the design of the other pages, or just be a clean, friendly-looking introductory page with a totally seperated purpose. Now it's something in the middle.
- Some aesthetical things. Many graphical elements like icons and orange text boxes in the left-sidebar aren't that well designed. This isn't a big problem, I think for many it's trivial how these little things look, but for me these little touches are important. There are more urgent things to consider and it's a resource thing, I bet, but is it possible to suggest alternate designs? There are many quite good looking free license icons and graphics available online.
- Typography. Sometimes there's too little space between a text box and the text, which makes text harder to read. Not a major problem, but something that helps usability.
- ZSpace could need more polish. It would be nice if it were faster and there could be a ZSpacer search directly in the ZSpace window without the need to click "ZSpacers" etc.
Overall, I really like the direction of ZCom.
Reply this comment
Re: Some thoughts on ZCom design
By Albert, Michael at Oct 08, 2010 14:54 PM
Hi,
> I've been interested in usability, graphic design, typography, website design etc. for many years now and the whole scene is really contradictory because the way people browse is being defined by commercial interests.
That is my impression too.
> People are used to clutter-free websites because usually the whole point of the design is to make you click an ad link, "to help you" make a bying decision or to visit as many pages as possible.
My impression, too...though sometimes there is lots of clutter, but with the same intention.
> With ZCom the difference in goals is huge and I think it's a good point that people should see also new topics, not just something they are familiar with. It's not about consuming information, it's about expanding your horizon, educating yourself and having a place where you can be in contact with people from the left.
Well, again, that is our intention...
> I think the decision not to follow the typical mainstream website design orthodoxy is a ballsy one, but at least in my case it has been a good one.
It is hard. We don't want to get in a mindset that if they do it - it must be bad - so we can't do it. Somethings even commercial outfits do have at least some merit and can be learned from, of course. But some things are a down hill slope toward what we don't want to become.
> 8 years ago I heard about ZNet and started with the latest articles from Chomsky but my interests grew from there, partly because there wasn't some enormous "Featured Chomsky" banner.
Yes, that's the point of the choices. And what some people don't understand is if a bunch of people leave due to the difference from what they are used to, but you stay and become more broadly involved, that is in our view more important. Now if we can keep more of the folks who turn away - and we have no evidence how many that is - without losing the effect on you,that is good. That is what our next design idea, being put online for public assessment, seeks to accomplish.
> I think ZEasy is a welcome addition to the regular site, because mobile internet use is surging and it works pretty well, although I would like it to be faster on my phone.
We would too - and the big site too. This is partly code, but mostly money....for bigger and more servers, etc.
> ZCom regular and ZEasy together work pretty good for quick article lookups and thorough discovering and social networking.
There are things I would like to change, of course.
Good, what...
> ZCom homepage is totally different by design (links are on the left, doesn't include the whole navigation from other pages) and thus the navigation between ZCom and other pages is a bit confusing. It should emulate the design of the other pages, or just be a clean, friendly-looking introductory page with a totally seperated purpose. Now it's something in the middle.
I thought it was the latter. It basically only has the key parts, and a link to each. The operation is many parts, and they each deserve to be present and described - was our view. We assume people only use this page once, if that often. No?
> Some aesthetical things. Many graphical elements like icons and orange text boxes in the left-sidebar aren't that well designed. This isn't a big problem, I think for many it's trivial how these little things look, but for me these little touches are important.
We think they are too...working on them, but, also, if you have some talent in that direction, send us some alternatives...
> There are more urgent things to consider and it's a resource thing, I bet, but is it possible to suggest alternate designs? There are many quite good looking free license icons and graphics available online.
By all means, sure!
> Typography. Sometimes there's too little space between a text box and the text, which makes text harder to read. Not a major problem, but something that helps usability.
Please explain...where, give me an example, I am just not sure what you are referring to.
> ZSpace could need more polish. It would be nice if it were faster and there could be a ZSpacer search directly in the ZSpace window without the need to click "ZSpacers" etc.
Ah, okay...and speed, again, we couldn't agree more about.
> Overall, I really like the direction of ZCom.
Thank you. I will be very interested to hear your reactions to the design changes of the various top pages we will be putting online soon.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Some thoughts on ZCom design
By Mäkinen, Joona-Hermanni at Oct 11, 2010 18:17 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Some thoughts on ZCom design
By Albert, Michael at Oct 11, 2010 18:24 PM
On the other point - agreed - but it is actually not so simple - the box is yellow - we don't like it always yellow, so we put a table in it - thus the additional space taken up - will consider options....
New design coming, by the way....
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some thoughts on ZCom design
By Mäkinen, Joona-Hermanni at Oct 11, 2010 21:13 PM
Okay! I'll check it out when it goes online and give you my two cents.
Reply this comment
a middle ground?
By Tamburini, Matteo at Sep 07, 2010 21:06 PM
The way it looks right now, the top page has 4 colums. could it be reduced to three, perhaps moving the recent blog posts (and everything else underneath it) to below the new content? and perhaps only show the most recent content (one day) with a link for more?
Reply this comment
Re: a middle ground?
By Albert, Michael at Sep 07, 2010 22:31 PM
Hi Matteo,
Yes, at some serious cost, given that it would change the whole site, all the templates, the way the left menus place overlays, and so on - we could remove a column. But why would that help make the site more congenial or easier to use?
The blog posts are new content...and why does pushing stuff down make the site easier to use?
Likewise, why would having only one day of links - say five or seven links, help. I just yesterday tried knocking it down from fifteen links to ten. I am not sure there is any benefit form that. What it does is if someone comes back every third day, they have to click the more or they will miss a day's worth. If we had one day's worth, they would have to click to see more, if they missed even one day viewing the site. I just don't understand how presenting less makes it easier for people to find something they wish to read.
However, I have encountered something like this before - twice. People sometimes tell me they hate great large bookstores and libraries. They feel like there is so much in them, when they visit, that they will never have time to read it. Well, that's true, of course, but why not feel, great there is so much, someone is reading some of it, someone else is reading other stuff, and all of us can get any of it we want? What a great and broad set of offerings for me to choose from. Why not be happy you can have something you want, rather than sad you can't have everything that is available?
An even more extreme version of a somewhat similar, and perhaps even very similar - I am not sure - surfaced back when Z Magazine was 96 pages, and sometimes longer. We got a constant barrage of mail - shorten it. Choose less content. We would write them and ask what they would have us leave out. There were two types of replies - some people said, keep Chomsky, keep international, dump gender stuff, or race stuff, or whatever they said. Others would say, nothing in particular, there is just too much.
What was incredible was that it was overwhelmingly highly educated readers, advanced degrees, professors, writers, and the like saying this. Other readers, working people, would always say more is better - they would read what they want.
We couldn't for the life of us figure out how these folks saying ZMag was too long for them could pick up a daily newspaper, or a serious journal like say, Scientific American, or even a movie or sports magazine, all of which were longer, and not want to incinerate two thirds of it. So we kept pressing people who said it to us, and we started to get answers that made sense of the situation.
People would say they were really busy and pressed for time. Not surprising in this fucked up society. They trust our judgement. A compliment we appreciated. They want us to pick what is best for them to read - not too much, and deliver just that. The rest, however, makes them feel guilty - literally, person after person told us that. What they meant was that they felt they SHOULD read it, but they couldn''t take the time to do so, and felt guilty. They wanted us to remove it so they wouldn't have to see that they were skipping it. I am not exaggerating at all. This was the message from lots and lots of readers.
Here is the odd part. We of course had nothing against people not reading what they didn't have time to read. No sin in that. We couldn't understand their feeling guilty about it. And their idea that we shouldn't deliver it - which would ensure that another person who preferred that stuff wouldn't have it available - we found incredible.
I admit I feel pretty similarly in this discussion, though it is certainly less specific and blatant than the ZMag one was.
Space is virtually free online. We couldn't keep ZMag long. We had to cut it back to stay alive at all. Doing so, by the way, did not induce more readers - my other reason for thinking cutting back offerings is not a plausible scenario. But online, we can deliver as much as is worthy. Why should we not do that?
Reply this comment
Respectfully disagree
By Denton, Marcus at Sep 07, 2010 02:26 AM
Hi Mike, hope you're good. I wish you weren't conflicted about whether to take the 1 million ZEasy users vs. 200,000 ZRegular users. To me that's a no-brainer: take the million, build loyalty among them, and then build (or feature) more complex features they want. To make the initial cost of entry high in terms of time and confusion doesn't seem fruitful for either gaining users or leading to social change.
Reply this comment
Re: Respectfully disagree
By Albert, Michael at Sep 07, 2010 22:09 PM
Hi Marcus
Why is it a no brainer? Honestly, it is occupying a lot of my brain - as evident from the blog post - am I simply cracked?
If you assume you can go from five times more casual users to that many serious users easier than you can go from one fifth serious users to five times that number of serious users - and that you can get the larger number of casual users to pay regular attention with a stripped down version of the site - then I agree with you. And we would instantly embark on the path. But that is assuming the result not making a case for it.
And it is also what I find doubtful, well, actually highly unlikely, on both counts.
The interesting reason is that I think what we might call the experience of casual use - for reasons that I more than admit I don't understand - but I did take a stab at loosely characterizing in the blog - militates against serious use by the habits and expectations it builds in us - all of us - so that it is hard to go from lots of casual to lots of serious use. I think serious use - on the other hand - by quite a few people, much less than 100,000, would lead to additional serious use, by many many more people.
For a little humor, check the splash page - www.zcommunications.org - and the description of ZMobile and ZEasy - and then read the quote bearing on them from Edgar Allen Poe.
Okay, but in any event, right now people who want casual use - or use without seeing what they aren't now interested in, can have what they want in two ways - which is two more ways than most any other site I know of. You can trivially click to ZMobile/ZEasy and use it. Or you can create your own Custom ZNet and use it. Okay. the latter takes time and effort - but you get exactly the site you want. The former can't be easier, I suspect, and you get the pared down version.
To make that the default and have everyone see only a tremendously reduced top page would have horrendous financial ramifications and also violate what I think is our mandate - to be multi issue, multi focus, and attend to analysis/news but also to vision strategy...without even accounting for the choice interfering with being in touch, having announcements, having interactivity, etc.
The fact is, most sustainers haven't clicked to try any advanced features at all - perhaps even the left menus - even with the links right in front of them, Why would you think people would burrow into the system to seek things that they don't even know to be there?
Now comes what may be a real point of disagreement.
You say, "To make the initial cost of entry high in terms of time and confusion doesn't seem fruitful for either gaining users or leading to social change."
Initial entry happens for a new person by someone sending them a url, or their doing a search, or clicking a link elsewhere and arriving at our site, etc. So, they are likely to either see an article, or the ZNet top page. The later is what is in contention, I think.
So please, do me this favor.
Go to the top page now. Imagine yourself a first time viewer. What is design confusing? What is technically time consuming? If all you are doing is reading recent content?
On the other hand, what might be daunting if you are not seriously leftist - or if you have very harsh time pressures but see the site as offering tons of worthy content?
Now make believe that instead you are a new user looking at a drastically stripped down site - if you like, you could look at ZMobile. It is certainly less stuff than the full ZCom, I agree. But would you even look twice? Would you book mark it? And so on.
I am fine with providing both ZMobile/ZEasy and ZCom - and users can go to what they want. But the idea that the site everyone has been using should suddenly be hidden and a stripped down site should take its place - and that we should have the stripped down presentation the default for people, I find really hard to fathom.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Respectfully disagree
By Denton, Marcus at Sep 09, 2010 05:32 AM
We could go back and forth on it again, but really the most important thing is that the site's users think it should be simpler and easier. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong; there will be costs to pushing against this reality.
I disagree that simplifying entails losing the multi-issue, multi-lens focus. You're the editor, keep putting up good stuff. People will read it. Increasing numbers will increasingly use Z as a home base, and people will be influenced by the complementary holism even if they're not predisposed initially. And no, I'm not saying your input doesn't matter. But think of it from an organizer's perspective. The question is not how ideal can you make the site in your eyes, but rather how can you use the site to get people, where they are, to go where you want them to go.
My old dream was that people using Z on a regular basis would become "Z people", a real community. We'd know when we were online with each other so we could chat. We'd have connections outside of Z too (like facebook). We'd have running conversations on a message board. We'd start meeting up in real life.
ZCom- as in Z Community.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Respectfully disagree
By Albert, Michael at Sep 09, 2010 14:31 PM
Hi Marcus - how you doing?
Honestly, I don't think we went back and forth even once. You wrote a nice and very sensible comment. And I replied, I went back, so to speak - taking your words very seriously, responding to each point. Now your response is to repeat your earlier view - which is fair enough - but you ignored nearly everything I wrote in reply to that view - and I think that is not a forth to my back, so to speak.
You don't comment about the financial implications of stripping down the top page or making it ZEasy with a link somewhere to what is now the top. You give no answer to the fact that people can use zmobile/zeasy instead of ZNet when anyone wants to. And you give no indication of what changes, if any, or even what types of changes, if any, in ZNet would be helpful. So, given my views relayed to you, I have nothing from your response that I can examine, think about, and try to act on, that might change my views or offer directions to proceed in.
I don't know how you know what "the site's users think" or how anyone else does, for that matter. Certainly it can't be from a few anecdotes which show how some individuals think - but not much more than that unless we extrapolate from their comments, which I have been trying hard to do - including in the past couple of weeks making some related changes on the top page..
When I extrapolated from Brian Kelley's comments, and experience, however, I got different insights, it seems, than you. Yet I haven't heard anyone say his experience shouldn't count. I don't want to make believe he is everyone. Similarly, if I presented a bunch of emails saying the site was absolutely wonderful - that wouldn't mean much either, unless one had reason to extrapolate.
More, and mainly, since no matter how few users find the main site difficult, if any of them do - and surely that is the case - then it is a situation to address, But I don't see how we can offer anything easier, so to speak, than ZMobile/ZEasy - and anyone can use that, of course. So we are left only with making changes to ZNet which make it more friendly, easy, etc., but without diminishing its offerings.
People make ZNet their top page. They could make the splash zcommunications page their top page - or zmobile/zeasy for that matter. They pick ZNet, and I suspect will mostly keep picking ZNet, at least on desktops, because they feel that is the real gateway to the site's contents, the quickest avenue to everything... They want to see all the real stuff. Okay. the ZNet top page is what it is and what we can keep refining it to be. But for those who want a site that has a whole lot less up front, a whole lot less that is visible until you actively go get it, why not choose something other than znet as your top page - like zcom itself, or zeasy?
I also asked you to check the ZNet top page and try things and say what you think is off putting or difficult, imagining yourself to be a new user, or a frequent user, or whatever. I am not saying you have to do that - to have an opinion. But doing that would certainly inform an opinion, and give it more chance of leading to changes!
We think about the site precisely as you say - by the way - as a tool or vehicle that can generate more left involvement, activism, etc. But, sitting where I do, looking at budgets as well as the site, if I take into account impact on first time viewers, on repeat but still casual users, on frequent users, on Free Members, and on Sustainers, right now, honestly, the most important constituency for the site steadily gaining more impact is, I think, Free Members, followed by Sustainers.
There are more than enough in those categories so that if those constituencies do more, contribute more, etc., the whole site will steadily grow in impact, and in user base. For example, imagine we can move 10,000 Free Members - and surely this means ones who are already actively and avidly using the site - into Sustainers - and we can move a nice chunk of Sustainers from being loyal donors - (an incredibly important way to help that is, in fact, keeping us alive) to also being active bloggers, commenters, ZSpace users and promoters, photo album creators, book database uploaders, and then emissaries urging others to relate, etc. With those two gains, or I suspect even just a fraction of those two gains, anything additional becomes doable and even probable. But if we can't increase donations and active participation, even if we got many many more "viewers" - and I sincerely doubt ZEasy is going to achieve that but we cetainly hope it does - the whole site would steadily diminish, over time, for want of resources...
Your dream is ours... But real community requires not just people seeing the site, but relating to it, and doing so, I am sure you would agree, with more than tweet scale engagement... We are working on it.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respectfully disagree
By Denton, Marcus at Sep 21, 2010 03:37 AM
You can dismiss my critique as being too short to matter, but there's plenty for you to consider if you want to. And, to be honest, my intent is to avoid getting in a battle of words, I don't have time for that, and that is your terrain and something I'm not going to be able to compete with. Please respect and accommodate that I can't handle posts much longer than this one. We can break things up if we need to.
My take on what users think, as an aggregate, is not based on any independent judgement of mine, really, but mostly from you. Am I wrong that you think the site has not met your expectations/hopes for growth? This exchange is itself based off of a blog you wrote about this very topic. Plus there's always room for improvement. I don't see the disagreement on this one.
I did look at the top page again, by the way. My opinion is, it is too busy and deters first-time / infrequent users and thus reduces repeat/in-depth users and consequently, your revenue. I asked some of my friends and they agreed. I drew up my suggestion for a top page arrangement and posted it a while back when you and Chris were chastising people for using facebook and the whole thing flared up. Re-categorize the tabs from 14 or 16 or whatever (with who knows how many subheadings) into 4 or 5. Make the top page 3 columns instead of 4. Speed is key: most people are coming for the articles only, so make access to them fast, with little need for scrolling but quick ability to see title and subject.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respectfully disagree
By Albert, Michael at Sep 21, 2010 14:10 PM
You write: "My take on what users think, as an aggregate, is not based on any independent judgement of mine, really, but mostly from you. Am I wrong that you think the site has not met your expectations/hopes for growth? This exchange is itself based off of a blog you wrote about this very topic. Plus there's always room for improvement. I don't see the disagreement on this one."
The thing we find not up to our liking - not succeeding as we desire - yet - though it is succeeding in these regards, in our view, perhaps more than most other left sites - maybe even more any other left site - is the social interaction side of Z understood not as general socializing, but as serious political exchange and participation. Honestly, as best we can tell this has almost zero to do with new users. There are 6000 sustainers and it is mainly about them. There are 100,000 free members, and it is somewhat about them. If you imagine these two constituencies utilizing ZGroups, Blogs, and Commenting, photo albums, etc., at even a very low average personal level for each - the volume of overall participation would be enormous.
This is the problem that irks us - and, by the way, it is our impression that far from being a Z problem, it is an internet problem, true almost everywhere online. Participation is a tiny tiny fraction of use - and most places, whether with simpler or more complex sites - maybe nearly all places, there is almost no interaction that is really serious - of the sort we are seeking.
There is no disagreement about improvement being possible on all counts - which is why we change things all the time, many things in the past few weeks...see the most recent Newsletter mailing, also, about things in the works, etc.
Your suggestions - we should gut the top menu down from sixteen to four entries - removing twelve - and then also gut the sub menus - and we should also remove a column (I assume not the left menu) in that way either knocking off a third of what is visible, or pushing a third way down.
Okay, I am not convinced that your suggestions would even make things much less busy, honestly - and I think it would consign lots that should be easily accessible to virtual invisibility. So we disagree - so I ask, okay, what would you cut from the top menu, and what part of what is visible on the top page would you either remove, or move way down?
If you don't want to answer, no problem - but at this point, I am not ignoring your suggestions, Rather, I don't agree - neither does Chris. So rather than dismiss them, I am saying, well, if you think it is really important, and you think you are on to something, since it isn't convincing yet - go a little further...
And, by the way, do you realize that you can change the menus - exactly as you say we should change them - on your own custom version of the site? And that it is quick and easy to do, even - taking less time than it took me to write this reply? And that you could then show us the result. And not only that, others could even copy your top custom version, if they want, to become theirs, or to be refined some and then become theirs, in one click?
As far as making things fast - we of course try for that all the time, at great expense and effort. And we now provide ZMobile - or ZEasy - too. Try the left menu - it makes access to almost everything quite fast, and does not require changing pages, even to gain access...
On the rest, I don't know about "ships passing in the night" - but I was and am taking you quite seriously, including asking questions, etc. I find it hard to understand why you think that is anything other than my trying to learn more about your opinion and its basis...as well as reply.
And I have to tell you Marcus, that saying you can't handle more than a few paragraphs - strikes me as disturbing, and very much in line with the worries I voiced in another recent blog post about the impact of the internet on our preferences. If you think something is important - the site - and you think you have ideas that could be very beneficial, and if we don't yet agree, and if I say can you elaborate - then why would you say I can't deal with more than a few words?
In the old days people used to write letters - they would go on and on, as much as needed, when they had issues, ideas, etc. Nowadays there are no slow mail letters - rather there is email. This should allow longer and more timely communications, debates, explorations, because it is so much easier to prepare and send and receive - but, instead, there is a premium on communicating in a few lines - this is not progress and more than media requiring sound bites is progress...
For reference, handling long posts is relatively simple even if you don't like doing it in your browser comment form - just copy it to a text program. Interact there, as you like. Then copy back into the comment form - if you don't like working in the comment form in the first place.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respectfully disagree
By Denton, Marcus at Sep 22, 2010 01:02 AM
I need to spend more time on the top page to be more detailed than what I wrote above.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respectfully disagree
By Albert, Michael at Sep 22, 2010 13:45 PM
What I do agree with, however, is trying to accomplish what we do, in less space...
Here is what we have now, the logic....
A top menu with top tabs each of which are in our view fundamentally important component areas of the site. It changes every so often, but mainly we think what is most critical is what's there now...
If you click any of the tabs, you go to that area. If you roll over it, you see sub areas beneath the highlighted top area, and can go directly to those.
Once you go to an area, typically the top tab for that area is highlighted, and so you see the menu that is ear marked for that area visible, and can then click on any item on that menu (beneath the top tabs), to visit that. For example, if you go to ZMag, you see a ZMag menu beneath thee row of top tabs for easy further zmag navigation, yet you can still also go anywhere else.
Your proposed change is that we should have four instead of sixteen main categories. Well, we have sixteen - period. So let's say that differently. We should pick out four of the sixteen to highlight... as top level (or perhaps some meta categories, such as you propose, as top level). Then under each of those we have a lesser number of sub menus. Ignoring what you actually choose since if we had a gun to our head to cut back as much as you propose we would choose very different things. This means, mostly, that the sub menus will be the rest of the now top menu.
If we act on your proposal, fewer areas are visible at the outset, and therefore reachable via one click. When you get to an area, there is no top menu devoted to that area. Also, the menu items are dramatically diminished in number. If we do it your way, then, you will have what you like and are interested in, etc. But if we do it someone else's way, you won't and some of what you think most critical may be completely absent.
Now - the reason, as far as I can see, that you feel that we should remove lots that we feel is important, and lots that is the reason why we bother existing - is your feeling that users confronted with too many choices will leave, or, even if they like the content, will not stay or come back.
I honestly do not understand this though aspects of the claim are true for lots of folks. As I have written elsewhere - that doesn't make it good. In fact, I think it is a very bad trend - that arises partly because of the logic of browsing, but mostly because the mega sites accustom people to fast faster and fastest and easy easier and easiest. But, okay, let's say your belief about users is accurate. It is also true that users who do stay will have harder navigation to many parts of the site that would, with your change, be not available from the top menu.
That is a trade off... For now, instead of that option, for those who want fewer choices visible we provide a simple - really simple - site, and we also let users customize the site however they like. This makes more sense to us - both to provide useful navigation and to have the site highlight what we think warrants highlighting.
So that is where we are at regarding "number of options available." On the other hand, I agree that the top tab menu takes too much space (even though we let people shrink it with the arrow off to the right) and we are working on a more streamlined display of options...
Reply this comment