<title>Concise, SCANNABLE, and Objective: How to Write for the Web</title>  <p><strong>Summary:</strong> Studies of how users continue reading the Web found they scan the text that they do not actually read: instead. A report of five different writing styles found that a sample Web site scored 58% higher in measured usability with regards to was written concisely, 47% higher if the text was scannable, and 27% higher when it was written in a target style as opposed to the promotional style utilized in the control condition and many current Web pages. Combining these three changes into a site that is single was concise, scannable, and objective in addition lead to 124% higher measured usability.</p>   <p>Unfortunately, this paper is written in a print style that is writing is somewhat too academic however you like.<!--more--> We all know this will be bad, but the paper was written as the way that is traditional of on a research study. We have a short summary that is more suited for online reading.</p>   <h2>Introduction</h2>  <p>"Really good writing - you do not see most of that on the net," said one of our test participants. And our impression that is general is most Web users would agree. Our studies declare that current Web writing often does not support users in achieving their definitive goal: to locate useful information as quickly as you are able to.</p>   <p>We have been Web that is running usability since 1994 Nielsen 1994b, Nielsen and Sano 1994, Nielsen 1995. Our studies have been just like most other Web usability work (e.g., Shum 1996, Spool et al. 1997) and possess mainly looked over site architecture, navigation, search, page design, layout, graphic elements and magnificence, and icons. Even so, we now have collected many user comments in regards to the content in this long number of studies. Indeed, we have started to understand that content is king within the user's mind: When asked for feedback on a Web page, users will comment on the high quality and relevance associated with content to a much greater extent that we consider to be "user interface" (as opposed to simple information) than they will comment on navigational issues or the page elements. Similarly, when a full page pops up, users focus their attention regarding the center for the window where they see the body text before they bother looking over headerbars or other elements that are navigational.</p>   <p>We now have derived three main content-oriented conclusions from our four years' of Web usability studies Nielsen 1997a:</p>   <p><ul>    <li>users do not keep reading the internet; instead they scan the pages, trying to pick out a sentences that are few even elements of sentences to get the information they want</li>    <li>users do not like long, scrolling pages: they prefer the text to be short also to the point</li>    <li>users detest something that appears like marketing fluff or overly hyped language ("marketese") and prefer factual information.</li>  </ul>  </p>   <p>This latter point is well illustrated because of the following quote from a customer survey we ran on the Sun website:</p>   <blockquote><p>"One word of advice, folks: Let's do not be so gratuitous and self-inflating. Beginning answers to sense that is common such as "Will Sun support my <a href="https://essaytyperonline.com/">essay writers</a> older Solaris platform?" with answers such as "Sun is exceptionally devoted to. " and "Solaris is a operating that is leading in today's business community. " does not give me, as an engineer, a lot of confidence in your capability. I want to hear fact, not platitudes and self-serving ideology. Hell, have you thought to just paint your home page red under the moving banner of, "Computers around the globe, Unite under the glorious Sun motherland!"</p> </blockquote>  <p>Even though we have gained some knowledge of site content from studies that mainly concerned higher-level Web design issues, we felt that individuals necessary to learn more about Web writing to be able to advise our content creators. We therefore designed a number of studies that specifically looked at how users read website pages.</p>   <h2>Summary of Studies</h2>  <p>We conducted three studies by which an overall total of 81 users read website pages. The very first two studies were qualitative and exploratory and were aimed at generating insight into how users read and whatever they like and dislike. The study that is third a measurement study geared towards quantifying the possibility advantages from a few of the most promising writing styles identified in the first two studies. All three studies were conducted throughout the summer of 1997 in the SunSoft usability laboratories in Menlo Park, CA.</p>    <p>A major goal in the initial study was to compare the reading behavior of technical and non-technical users. Even though we had conducted some earlier studies with non-technical participants, nearly all of our studies had used users that are highly technical. Also, because of the nature of our site, the majority of the information collected from site surveys was given by technical users.</p>   <p>In Study 1, we tested a complete of 11 users: 6 end-users and 5 technical users. The main difference between technical and non-technical users did actually play out in participants' familiarity and expertise with search tools and hypertext. The users that are technical better informed about how precisely to execute searches as compared to end-users were. Technical users also seemed more aware of and much more thinking about following hypertext links. A minumum of one end-user said he could be sometimes hesitant to use hypertext for fear of getting lost.</p>   <p>Aside from those differences, there appeared as if no differences that are major how technical and non-technical users approached reading on the net. Both groups desired scannable text, short text, summaries, etc.</p>   <p>The tasks were classic directed tasks comparable to those used in most of our previous Web usability studies. Users were typically taken to the house page of a specific website and then asked to get specific information on the site. This method was taken up to avoid the well-known problems when users need to find things by searching the entire Web PollockWeb that is entire and Hockley 1997. Here is a sample task:</p>   <p> <table align="center" border="1" w > <tbody> <tr> <td>You are planning a vacation to Las Vegas and would like to realize about a local restaurant run by chef Charlie Trotter. You heard it had been found in the MGM Grand hotel and casino, but you want extra information about the restaurant. You start by studying the website for Restaurants & Institutions magazine at: http://www.rimag.com</p>   <p>Hint: Look for stories on casino foodservice</p>   <p>You will need to find out: <br />-what the content said in regards to the restaurant <br />-where most food is served at the riverboat casino</p>   <p>Unfortunately, the internet happens to be so difficult to use that users wasted enormous amounts of time looking for the page that is specific contained the answer to the question. Even if regarding the intended page, users often could not get the answer since they didn't look at line that is relevant. As an outcome, most of Study 1 finished up repeating navigation issues we got fewer results than desired relating to actual reading of content that we knew from previous studies and.</p>   <h4>Users Like To Search</h4>  <p>Upon visiting each site, the majority of of the participants desired to focus on a keyword search. "a search that is good is key for an excellent website," one participant said. If search engines was not available, some of the participants said, they would try utilising the browser's "Find" command.</p>   <p>Sometimes participants needed to be asked to attempt to get the information without the need for a search tool, because searching was not a focus that is main of study.</p>