As in, "Someone stop this website right away because it has terrible content, architecture and design." That's right, this is the "best of/worst of" post to exemplify extremes of what the internet can be. My favorite website and one I find frankly faulted.
It is often easier to critique, pointing out flaws, than it is to explain why something works. When you see a bad movie, you say, "That story sucked," "The acting was unconvincing," "The camera shacking made me sick." When you see a good movie, understanding the elements that lend cohesion to the experience is far less common than expressing a general opinion. "Yeah, I thought it was fun/exciting/funny/scary." And since the critique comes more naturally, that's where I'll begin.
It is often easier to critique, pointing out flaws, than it is to explain why something works. When you see a bad movie, you say, "That story sucked," "The acting was unconvincing," "The camera shacking made me sick." When you see a good movie, understanding the elements that lend cohesion to the experience is far less common than expressing a general opinion. "Yeah, I thought it was fun/exciting/funny/scary." And since the critique comes more naturally, that's where I'll begin.
To establish a constant, the two sites I'm evaluating are film news sites. Ain't It Cool News and SlashFilm are two of the highest read sites for industry updates, and peripheral topics of visual entertainment discussion. These sites could not be more different, though.
Most obviously, the visual design of AICN is comprised of nothing but text. Headline after headline fills the page. Furthermore, the front page is highly scroll intensive. True, topics are broken down into organized categories, but the uninterrupted list of article topics is overwhelming and unappealing.
/Film takes on a far simpler and more appealing visual design. The news stories (and the like) are presented in standard blog post format. There are almost always interesting pictures to accompany each article. Additionally, the post are short, typically with an option for further detail reading: "More after the Jump." Obviously, this blog-style of information presentation leads to a great deal of scrolling, but the separation of articles, allows for focused interest on each subject right from the front page.
Also, appealing is the writing structure of /Film. Short and sweet, their articles convey all necessary information and refer the reader to previous articles for deeper details. I find their opinions on films to be similar to mine. What separates them from other film sites, though, is the exuberance for the medium. These writers display their love for film through the excitement with which they detail industry on-goings.
AICN, on the other hand, is far more wordy. They often use much larger quotes, where /Film typically cuts it down to the applicable segments. The headlines, for the obvious reason of being the only pull towards the article, are long-winded and annoyingly sarcastic.
This leads me to voice. As mentioned above, I love /Film because of their informative and passionate tone. They want everyone to know more about the films that they are interested in, and sometimes rag on those that are... lame. AICN seems to be in the business for self-interest. More than promoting the news, they are putting out their opinion on that story.
I can see how this voice might lend better towards the film discussion boards, led by fanboys who rip anything they slightly disprove of to shreds. For me, though, the news is all I need and /Film is where I get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Have you something to say?