[Sigia-l] length of nav labels

[Terrence Wood]

On 11 Aug 2005, at 1:42 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:

> At first blush, we're not seeing any change. We think it's for 
> because, while the resolution is much bigger, it's still way smaller 
> than that of print.

yep, but it's way bigger than last century.

> A 1024x768 screen still comes in somewhere around 72 dpi. A newspaper 
> rings in at 2400dpi. In a standard paper, you get a lot more 
> resolution to play with.
>
I think we are talking at cross purposes... perhaps I should referred 
to screen dimensions. The amount of viewable information on a 12" - 15" 
vs. a 19", (or 30" if you're so lucky) monitor is quite different. In a 
newspaper you have a fixed dimensions and precise control of the 
layout, on-screen you don't (or you can, but then you end up with 
completely unused space, eek!).

While we're on the subject of dpi - the fact that screen resolution is 
low compared with print is the very reason we need less dense info - 
the legibility and quality of the type is completely different (read 
worse).

We already know that people don't read on screen in the same way, or as 
well, as for print -- hence the many, many recommendations to write 
specifically for the screen -- so I think the comparsion with 
newspapers just doesn't stack up.


> Now, think about the three most popular papers in the US: New York 
> Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. How much whitespace do you 
> find on their front pages? Even USA Today, which is probably the least 
> information dense of the three, is still pretty dense. People *want* a 
> lot of information at their fingertips.

I don't know those publications, but I understand your point. Simply, 
newspapers need less whitespace because the type quality is better than 
onscreen, and because the format is well-known.

Most newspapers follow the same conventions (or standards or best 
practices) that have pretty much remained constant for the longest time 
therefore the usability for a newspaper is pretty good. We know that 
newspapers and web sites are not the same because a newspaper would 
never use the above the fold front page to list every article appearing 
within, whereas that is OK for some web sites e.g. mcmaster.

If the newspaper model was such a good fit for the usability of web 
sites, then I'm sure that model would be the default for web sites by 
now... but it isn't, and it isn't.

> So, a newspaper is a very dense page with extremely high resolution. 
> We're no way near that with our current screen technology.

Agreed. Which is why we need a different model to newspapers for 
on-screen use.