One quick, drive-by post (I want to get back my other job. Today: Explaining how Philip Armour made his zillions so I can get this chapter FINISHED.) A
nyway, wanted to pass along this fascinating dissection of a failed attempt at "online" journalism. Stoltz does not present any hard evidence for his claims about the speed at which people read online (yes, I clicked over to his "source," but the source simply presents the date as fact, without any supporting evidence.)
But I think we agree that there is an inherent difference between reading paper and reading a screen, and so his basic argument --- that print journalism can't be a one-for-one transfer from paper to screen --- is true. Anyway, completely worth reading.
And once again, I curse Twitter: I learned of this piece via @boraZ while doing an "Okay, I'm just going to turn on the computer for fifteen minutes and do a quickie scan of Twitter" and of course found ten things I want to read. Sigh.
But back to Mr. Armour. And hey, some day I'll heed the experts' advice, apparently supported by fact, that blog entries need to be SHORT, damnit, SHORT. Because, ya know, no one wants to read these long rambling semi-disquisitions.