New York Times feature on the Berlin Wall
The New York Times had an interesting multimedia piece on the fall of the Berlin Wall. They had readers submit photographs and memories of the wall, and then made a huge collage of everything. You click on a picture and then see the memory attached.
When I first saw the collage I was unimpressed, as it seemed jumbled and not very user-friendly. It also wasn't all that appealing to the eye. Despite my initial hesitations, I decided to try it out and found myself spending more time than I had anticipated clicking through all the photographs and reading through different memories.
I'd be interested to see what other people think. Like I said, I wasn't a fan of the layout at all yet I spent awhile reading through everything and looking at the different pictures.
Does layout matter if the content is good? Obviously the initial answer is yes, but how much does it matter? Should it just be enough to hook the reader in?
When I first saw the collage I was unimpressed, as it seemed jumbled and not very user-friendly. It also wasn't all that appealing to the eye. Despite my initial hesitations, I decided to try it out and found myself spending more time than I had anticipated clicking through all the photographs and reading through different memories.
I'd be interested to see what other people think. Like I said, I wasn't a fan of the layout at all yet I spent awhile reading through everything and looking at the different pictures.
Does layout matter if the content is good? Obviously the initial answer is yes, but how much does it matter? Should it just be enough to hook the reader in?
posted by Ben Goldberg at
11:06 PM
4 Comments:
I think this was an interesting idea, and it was interactive for the readers as well as the people who contributed their pictures. They should have done more with the layout to make it more organized for the users. I had the same reaction you had when I first saw the page, but I think a different layout would have helped to keep my interest. The content was interesting, but even with that, they could have included some of their own storytelling to add to the multimedia piece.
By
Stephanie Huff, At
November 11, 2009 2:12 PM
Wow, I completely agree with you both. I really think they could have done more with this layout - maybe into a montage/picture (not sure what that's called but when all the little pictures make up one big picture). I don't think it's a horrible layout but it didn't exactly draw my attention.
In response to Ben's questions about layout, I think the layout DOES matter even if the content is good. Readers who don't care or don't know much about the subject would just breeze on by. You have to get someone to initially click on a picture for them to want to look for more - even if the content is excellent, without that first click, they'll go somewhere else. That being said, I think the opposite is true too. If you have a great layout that intrigues someone to click, if it's bad information, they'll stop clicking and fast.
By
Alex Ludka, At
November 11, 2009 4:41 PM
I agree with most of the points made, especially in that the layout is a little off and that the pictures needed organization. If I were putting these pictures together I would have placed them in chronological order. I would have liked to see the progression of how certain parts of the wall changed over time.
I understand the collage/mural/mosaic feel that the NYT was going for in the artistic sense, but the multimedia feature lacked depth and the human side of the story, as Stephanie said.
The conjoining article was pretty informative in its retelling of West Vs. East tensions, symbolically represented by the wall.
By
MelissaQuijada, At
November 11, 2009 6:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home