Journalism's guiding principle when it comes to content production and delivery appears to be give the audience more and give it to them faster. This has become even more evident to me as I prepare to conduct an experiment investigating how the content and packaging of online news stories and advertising effects the way readers pay attention to, learn from and respond to online news content. If results of my experiment turn out the way I predict, not only will the research demonstrate the value of applying brain science to online news production but it will show how the manner in which most online news websites are structured goes completely against my notion of "brain-friendly" news content.
Online news websites that are "brain-friendly" are produced such that the structural layout as well as actual content of the website complements the way our brains are set up to pay attention to, learn from, and respond to information. My position is that brain-friendly online news websites are not only more likely to actually make people smarter about the world around them --- my simple way of stating the ideal objective of journalism --- but also provide a more effective advertising environment, which should obviously benefit both advertisers and the news organization.
Take a look at this website that is clearly NOT brain-friendly.
I commend the journalists at the Washington Times for obviously producing a ton of content but this is a typical case where the structure of the website does not even come close to complementing well established properties of the human brain. The human brain is a limited capacity information processor, and yes this even holds true for younger brains that are part of the multi-tasking media use generation. Decades of research in cognitive psychology including studies by researchers interested in how the mind processes media, like myself, has demonstrated that throwing a lot of unrelated bits of information at individuals overloads the brain resulting in significantly less learning of new information. This information dump approach to news website design only serves readers who have a very specific story they may be seeking out on the website so that they can selectively tune out information that is irrelevant to their immediate need. There might also be an initial burst of excitement and somewhat positive attitude generated towards the news website by this rush of information exposure.
This website stakes out the position of delivering information in a 24/7 manner so delivering a lot of content that appears to be regularly updated is consistent with that image. However, once the rush of seeing so much information thrown at you passes you’re left with either scanning a bunch of unrelated headlines, getting a very shallow representation of important news, or irritatingly sifting through the story options to find one that might be interesting or relevant to your current information needs. This approach to news website design cannot escape the fundamental problem that by cognitively overloading readers by dumping a lot of unrelated stories accompanied by disjointed advertising on the website, their readers could likely mirror the results of a study receiving some press toward the end of last year that reportedly found that viewers of a particular news network were actually less informed about the world than individuals who didn’t watch television news. I would also predict that advertisements placed in this kind of web content do not result in good ad recall, a primary measure of advertising effectiveness.
The goal of my research is to provide insight into “brain-friendly” news website design. It will be tremendously helped by your own observations and thoughts about the extent to which journalism succeeds or fails at being “brain-friendly,” meeting the mission of promoting a well-informed society and better serving advertisers in free markets. I look forward to our exchange of ideas!
Comments
that article was not brain friendly
as a matter of fact - i lost iq points reading it.
Been there done that
Couldn't agree more. I have personal experience with this. Can't wait for more information.
I can't read it. No
I can't read it. No alignment, no relatedness. Just red banner. That is all I see and now, I am clicking away.
Maybe they don't even have a
Maybe they don't even have a web designer.
good example?
Did I miss the good example of a brain-friendly site?
brain-friendly website example :)
www.google.com :)
Who's doing it right?
I'm anxious to learn more and, like Bob, see examples of brain-friendly sites -- even if they aren't news sites.
Great topic, but didn't
Great topic, but didn't article didn't provide any answers.
What makes a 'brain-friendly" website?
And why -- specifically -- is the Washington Post's site not "brain friendly?" Yes, it has lots of competing images and titles, but when reading online one can quickly find the point.
Unlike this article --which I re-read three times trying to find what makes "brain friendly" journalism.
Got any good examples
I'd love to see some links to sites that show what brain-friendly journalism could look like, at least in part.
suggestions
We're in the process of redesigning our newspaper web site. Would love to see examples of "brain friendly" sites and what it is that makes them that way.
Content gardents, Jacob Nielsen and the Shallows
Web sites can be designed for different purposes...
Jacob Nielsen published research about long form and short form content. Apparently the length of content has an impact on the reader. Jacob provides some research and an explanation that your length of post should be determined by your goals.
Goal: If you have many readers, focus on short and scan able content. This is a good strategy for advertising-driven sites or sites that sell impulse buys.
Goal:If your customers really need a solution. Focus on comprehensive coverage. That's a good strategy if you sell highly targeted solutions to complicated problems.
Now, not every site is selling products, but they are selling an idea or a story, so maybe this research has application to media companies as well as brands.
It occurs to me that the Washington Post website is designed for news. People do scan the page and click on the clicks that most interest them. This sort of design is quite popular; you see it on Mashable and also the Huffington Post.
Nicholas Carr's book "The Shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains," explores a lot of the issues regarding reading online. How people's brains are being affected by the constant stream of internet content. One idea from the book that really caught my imagination was that if you include links in a post, those links impede comprehension of the post, even if the reader doesn't click on the link, the reader has to stop and make a decision to read on or click through.. that one idea has changed my reading behavior, I'll always ignore links now and go back a second time to click through.
Because I read Carr’s book, and think there are a lot of good ideas there, I'm intrigued by your idea of making a brain friendly site, and I hope you'll ping me when next you post any articles on the topic at @johncass, I don't always follow every article here.
Google's battle with content farms over the last two years has been nothing if not astounding, many, many sites have seen their rankings and traffic drop because of the quality of their content. Design of content, if not the design of the website is an important factor in content being seen. As a counter point to content farms, I developed the idea of content gardens, the idea that by developing quality content that's sourced in ways that work within the eco-system of the web for social, seo and usability you can develop a great website with high quality content. CMO.com, Mashable, and Fords My Ford Story are all Content Gardens, a garden can be either a media or brand website.
I wonder what you think of this idea?
A lot to consider
Wow, thank you so much for the comments. It has given me a lot to think about. You all deserve a more thought out response than what I can deliver right now. I am returning from a meeting with Pfizer where we discussed applying the same psychophysiological measures I will be using to test news website design this spring to testing the "brain friendliness" of their communication materials. So this does go beyond news website design. John, I have really enjoyed following you on twitter and look forward to discussing your ideas. I will start pinging you. Please be patient with me. Next week Heather Shoenberger, a former journalist who is specializing in applying aesthetics to web design in her doctoral program and is my co-scientist on the RJI research, will be co-authoring new blog posts with me offering our current thoughts about specific elements of brain-friendly journalism. Have a great weekend!
Good Web Design
Good design in general translates directly to good web design. User-friendly sites have different graphical elements and arrangements based on their perceived audience. No matter, they adhere to principles of hierarchy, contrast, and application of tried and true comprehension research. Not so those produced by the news media. Why? They're still turning out newspapers. In the old days readers (1) scan the heads and first graf; (2) look for ad coupons; and (3) line the bird cage. In the online days, the click to something better, like a blog.
Your comments would be more compelling if you contrasted a user-oriented site with the one news site you demolish (a clone of its competitor sites).
A work in progress
I don't believe Paul's post said the Washington Post website was not brain friendly ... He didn't rate the Post's site either way. The example mentioned here is the Washington Times' new website. As to examples of good sites ... that's what Paul's project is all about this spring ... conducting research, creating a model, testing the model(s), and sharing what we learn. Learn more about his project here: http://www.rjionline.org/news/meet-paul-bolls
Screen Reading v. Paper
Screen Reading v. Paper Surface Reading.
Dan Bloom brings news that MRI brain imaging lab is to study differences in screen-reading, paper-surface reading.
Dan is a freelance writer based in Taiwan. His hunch that reading on paper is superior in terms of brain chemistry to reading off screens has yet to be proven or dismissed, but he hopes future reserach using fMRi and PET scans
will help explain the differences in terms of neuroscience.
Dr Ellen Marker studies reading. But not off screens or in
paper books. Her research is done in a Quincy laboratory.
The pioneering neuroscientist analyzes brains in their most enthusiastic reading state, hoping to understand the differences between reading off screens and reading on paper surfaces.
Like me, Dr Marker feels that her studies will show reading on paper is superior to reading off screens in terms of
retention, processing, analysis and critical thinking.
But first, let’s see what the scans will be like.
Dr Marker asks me to put myself into an fMRI machine so she and his team can study which areas of the brain are activated by reading text on paper compared to reading the same text on a computer screen or a Kindle e-reader.
And this is why I’m here. Today I will donate my brain scans to science.
Among the things that Market has discovered so far is that reading on paper might be something we as a civilization should not ever give up.
“Even though reading on screens is useful and convenient, and I do it all the time, I feel that reading on paper is something we should never cede to the digital revolution,” Marker, 43, says. “We need both.”
On the day I climb into the brain imaging cocoon, I am thinking about what it all might mean. But since I am just a guinea pig and not a scientist, I will have to wait for the results.
I enter a sterile lab, and Marker and her four associates greet me, all in white lab coats.
As they hand me my a pale blue gown to change into, I have
second thoughts — “How can I read while lying down horizontally my back, not my preferred reading mode?” — but decide to push myself.
Science needs me!
The scientists load me into the machine and I’m off.
Next step: They strap my head down, because any movement distorts the brain imaging. Ever try to read a book without facial movements?
I feel as if I’m being shoved into the middle of a toilet paper roll, the walls so close my eyelashes almost graze them.
Then I hear a voice through the earphones I’m wearing. It’s Dr Marker.
“You okay in there?” she asks.
Graduate student Dan Smith, 52, tells me to relax before
running around to join the other scientists in the control room.
With the invention of the fMRI only 20 years ago, along came the ability to look at brain activity. Marker says that by understanding a function as gigantic as reading, how the reading brain does its magic dance, a response that hijacks all of one’s attention, she might also learn how reading on screens could be inferior to reading on paper.
“The more we understand how the brain works,” she says, “the more we will be able to help people modulate its activity.”
As the machine switches on, it sounds like a jackhammer. I follow Marker’s instructions and as I do, the group watches my brain on their computer monitors. I will read passages from a novel, and then later I will read the same passages on a Kindle. I just hope the Kindle does not blow up inside the brain scan machine!
Research and teaching take up most of Marker’s time, but when she has a spare moment, she thinks about what all this might mean for the future of humankind.
During my first hour in the fMRI machine, researchers map my brain’s reading paths to find out which parts correlate to which regions of the brain.
“You have 10 minutes,” Marker says through my earphones near the end of our test. “Keep reading.”
On the other side of the glass pane, the scientists can see my brain lighting up as I read on paper and as I read on a screen. Regions light up in different ways, Marker says.
Komisaruk discusses what her research could do for the future of humankind. “We need to know if reading on screens is going to be good if it replaces all our reading on paper.”
Marker’s lab has paid me a $100 subject fee, so I want to give them their money’s worth.
After all, it’s not easy to get funding for this stuff — Marker
says she spends at least half of her time applying for grants.
“There’s no premium on studying paper reading modes versus
screen-reading modes in this society,” she tells me as Smith murmurs, “What do you expect? The gadgetheads want to take over.”
When the tests are over, Marker tells me the data takes two hours to convert, but it can take much longer to make sense of it.
“We’ll be at this for a while,” she says.
One of the biggest conundrums turns out to be a nagging
question for all mankind: What if reading on screens is not good for retention of data, emotional connections and critical thinking skills?
Marker begins slipping more and more into her thoughts. “Neurons, little bags of chemicals, create
awareness,” he says, “but how? How does the brain read?
What is reading, really?”
I see that at the heart of all her research, there is a
philosopher trying not only to understand reading, but also figure out the nuts and bolts that make up the reading brain.
“It’s the hard question I want to answer,” she says. “What is
the reading brain really all about?
“I find that,” she adds, “and I find the Nobel Prize.”
Written by Dan Bloom - Published on February 7, 2012 12:12 PM | Permalink
Add Your Comment