Reading on the Web takes more self-discipline than it does offline. How many browser tabs do you have open right now? How many are from links embedded in another piece your were reading and how many of them will you end up closing without reading since you don’t have the time to read Everything On the Internets? The analog parallel would be your New Yorker pile, but even that—now matter how backed up—has an endpoint.
Links add another dimension to a story when used well for context, sourcing, and reference. They’re extremely valuable and a critical part of the value that the Internet brings. But some people are better linkers than others. Look at that New York Times screen capture above. Every one of those links takes you to a topic page rather than something specifically relevant to the point in the text. That’s not worth the distraction of the links.
Here’s a Times story with editorially selected links in the story:
And here’s how it looks on the iPad:
Which is more readable? It’s not even close. Does that mean we ought to do without those links? No!
So what do you do about it? Probably nothing, of course. Footnotes are distracting in their own way. But what about a button to turn off in-text links?
Dismissing the question of what links do to attention and readability as some anti-link nonsense does nobody any good.
Ryan -- first of all, "readability" is subjective. I prefer the first Times version you present. You obviously prefer the second. Don't project your preferences on the universe.
I wouldn't dismiss Carr's points as "anti-link nonsense." I do think he makes assumptions about us, about readers in general, that underestimate our own ability to make choices for ourselves. A good browser will let you present links any way you want. (See Mark Bernstein's post.)
I guess to me the idea that links are so tempting that they prevent us from focusing on the text in front of us just seems to assume that we have precious little interest in the text in the first place. Say I'm sitting in my office next to a groaning bookshelf, reading a text that mentions lots of other books. I might be tempted to put the book down if it was dull and pick another book off the shelf. Do we blame the shelf or the dull book? Should I read in an empty room so I can focus better?
It seems to me that if we want to analyze distractions on the Web the first and biggest problem is the convention of Web advertising, which -- with the exception of Google text ads (unsurprisingly, the single most successful ad format in this medium) -- have evolved into an extraordinary array of interruptions, flashing banners, interstitial delays and popunder surprises. Next to the collected toolset of the online advertiser, the "cognitive load" of the little link looks pretty puny.
#1 Posted by Scott Rosenberg, CJR on Tue 1 Jun 2010 at 10:55 PM
I don't reckon I projected my preferences on the universe. Had I, I would have said "everyone in the universe agrees it's not even close." But I do suspect that the vast, vast majority would say a block of text in a uniform font is more readable than one with multiple colors or whatever. I'm no designer, but that seems pretty fundamental.
Great re the browser style sheet thing. I'm sure the top 2 percent of geeks (the ones who would never to do such a thing) will be able to go in and reconfigure their CSS files. As for the other 98 percent, forget about it.
Your analogy to books is a real stretch—literally and figuratively. We're lazy beasts. Clicking a link takes about 1/1000th the effort (by my rigorous scientific calculations) as getting up and pulling a book off the shelf.
But these are the types of questions that ought to be sussed out rather than dismissed. That's the point. What's the cognitive effect of, in this instance, hypertext? I suspect the answer is likelier to be net positive than not—even considering deleterious effects on concentration. But I don't know, and neither does anyone else, I suspect, including you or Carr.
On advertising, I don't see that so much since I myself rarely notice ads online--unless they're interstitials or those annoying in-text ads (That's one of the big reasons I don't think ad-reliant models will work for the press online). But I'd certainly be loath to deny that they aren't seriously distracting for many or most people and perhaps, largely unnoticed, to myself.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 1 Jun 2010 at 11:49 PM
Ryan, you are right to say that this is an issue that needs attention and I totally agree with you about the NYT (and many other pubs) use of links that just direct you to topic pages - annoys the hell out of me. But I think this is different to Carr's point. I think we definitely need to learn to use links better but it would be wrong to abandon them or even to put them a the bottom of the page.
I haven't seen the study's Carr quotes but I suspect some may be quite old. Usability conventions on the web evolve very quickly. I know that I have adapted to reading and working on screen - I used to have to correct essays in hard copy, I now can easily correct them with Word comment on screen.
I certainly like the look and feel of the NYT iPad app but the lack of key links frustrates me. I think we need to use links in context - because that's what they are: contextual - and I often click on something to test out the credibility of the source as part of my evaluation of the text. So having it there when I want it is a crucial part of my informed decision as to whether I keep reading or not. If used well by writer and reader they are an important part of the argument. If used poorly they are a distraction. But in both cases both writers and readers have to take responsibility for their linking/link using practices.
#3 Posted by Marcus O'Donnell, CJR on Wed 2 Jun 2010 at 02:13 AM
One of my problems with Carr is the one-sided way he presents research. Almost anything you can point to in modern society that provides benefits also has costs -- telephones, automobiles, microwave ovens. There are always going to be trade-offs. As some astute commentators have already noted, some sites have stupid linking policies which are driven by revenue and SEO concerns rather than readers' needs. It would be utterly uncontroversial to attack excessive or useless link practices.
But Carr wants attention from controversy so he's taken a small point and extended it way too far. So including appropriate links causes some TINY amount of extra distraction. It also provides readers with depth, authority and attribution among many other benefits. Are we really to believe that the human attention span is so fragile that people cannot adapt to reading a piece once over and then checking out the links? It's like saying telephone rings cause noise pollution or the clock on your microwave is distracting. It is NOT like saying autos cause air pollution or certain food additives lead to obesity. The cost/benefit analysis comes down solidly in favor of linking.
#4 Posted by Aaron Pressman, CJR on Wed 2 Jun 2010 at 10:53 AM
Links that connect you with more genuine information pertinent to the story are worth the distraction, links that take you to five other sites or pages before you can get to that information are unacceptable, abusive and manipulative.
Those who put one or two links in a story which lead you directly to everything else you want to know about the story, that's efficient and helpful. It's a relatively simple concept if you apply common sense, Socratic analysis and respect for your readers time. I always appreciate those who take that approach. I trust the links of some, while others who test my patience and waste my time, have their links passed over with extreme prejudice.
Most newspapers still don't have a clue how to use links properly, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc. etc. etc., I have an open invitation to any of them, my assistants is yours, but my fee is exorbitant and I insist on absolute editorial control. :-)
#5 Posted by Aaron B. Brown, CJR on Wed 2 Jun 2010 at 11:23 AM
A fundamental thing many (most?) "experts" miss about reading on the net is that they forget half the equation. It's not usersite. It's clientserver.
What does that mean? It means, for example, that Firefox allows you all sorts of client-side goodies (aka add-ons).
For links...
1 - I control link css. With the Stylish add-on I remove underling (underlining only happens on when I hover on links) and I - not sites - control link color. All that underlining is horrible for readability.
2 - For sites like nytimes.com - I use a greasemonkey script to remove the massive amounts of link/garbage inside paragraph tags. I convert the junk links to text.
an example
John Hughes Touch
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/movies/08appraisal.html?pagewanted=all
Without my script - there are 26 links. With my script enabled - there are 0.
>> Either way, getting rid of links is a failure on the writer’s part.
Thomas Friedman never links. Which means if he says "While I was playing golf with [captain of industry] he mentioned an interesting paper by [obscure guy] on [topic at hand]." - I have to google, and than google some more to try to find that article. Well, I HAD TO. I never read Friedman anymore. I avoid his articles. In fact - I usually avoid all columnists who refuse to include links. Man, it's annoying when there's something like this "In a popular youtube video..." - just give me the link!
testing - do BRs work in here?1
2
3
4
5
#6 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 12:25 PM