AG on New Media

For this, the last blog of the quarter, we were asked to compare the site design of two hometown news outlets. I’ll be looking at my home paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and our local ABC affiliate, KSTP TV. Though neither site are true design “home runs” the Star Tribune’s layout is more professional and functional, though they lack serious multimedia integration. KSTP’s site attempts to integrate video (as they should, given that they’re a TV station), but falls flat in its implementation.

The Star Tribune has two excellent design features. The first is borrowed from its print edition: white space. The homepage and its feature story pages (check out “The pressure year” for an example of a great feature with a nicely integrated hed, readout, sidebar and body text) are well spaced. On paper, this spacing makes the paper seem more friendly, and is quite literally easier to read. This readability translates onto the Web. For example, compare the Star Tribune’s homepage with that of the award-winning WashingtonPost.com. With stories and headlines bunched together, it’s much more difficult to read. Furthermore, the similarities between the Star Tribune’s paper edition and Web site should help support its branding efforts. Wether you’re looking at a broadsheet or a printout, you know you’re reading a Star Tribune article. The second key design feature of the Star Tribune’s Web site is the prominent search bar. Search is quickly becoming (if it isn’t already) our culture’s standard interface to information and media. By placing the search bar at the top center of the page (within the F shape that people look at), it integrates with the primary navigation of the site.

There are two disappointing aspects of the Star Tribune’s Web site. First is that it does not freely resize horizontally, meaning it cannot take advantage of widescreen monitors, which are quickly becoming the standard. A secondary effect of the narrowness is that fewer stories are visible without scrolling that might be if the page was wider. A “liquid” design would have been a better approach. Second, the newspaper fails to take advantage of Flash to deliver compelling audio and video on the homepage. Just yesterday, the New York Times started using a Flash player on its homepage to play audio. The Star Tribune has a custom player, however they link off their homepage to display it — taking the viewer away from the news. Their use of video is more abysmal, as they are simply using KSTP content in a pop up window.

KSTP’s video, like the rest of their site, leaves much to be desired. Their video offerings are pathetic. Video is played using a Windows Media Active X control meaning you have to install software that is specific to KSTP.com to watch the video. This is simply unacceptable. When streaming video options including Flash, standard Windows Media, Quicktime, and Real do not require Active X, why choose a proprietary format? Moreover, using such a control leaves Firefox users out in the cold, as only Microsoft Internet Explorer can use a control. Second, their site’s visual design suffers from a lack of “wideness” in a more extreme way than the Star Tribune. Only two stories are visible upon loading the homepage. Third, KSTP’s visual design looks like it was plucked right out of the late 90s: it has no white space, no interactivity, and image-heavy. Where search was displayed prominently at the Star Tribune, it is a small box on the left side that’s well “below the fold” at KSTP. Also interesting are the typo’s in KSTP’s site template. The copyright date, for example, is listed as 106.

KSTP’s site is a sad experience, particularly because video on the Web is currently an exploding medium. For a comparison with what a TV site should be, look at CNET TV (just don’t search for my review of the mALX ;)). On CNET TV, video is done in Flash, the picture quality is great, you can email links to specific clips, and most importantly, you can search for video content that interests you.