using one of my favorite contemporary poems by Jack Henry, i started to explore the way we read and digest communication delivered online. this is just a skim off the top of the ultimate goal, but i feel the questions proposed here are a good beginning.
TESTING THE AUTHOR'S ROLE IN WEB COMMUNICATION
As content becomes more dynamic, the reader becomes more lazy because the content is working for the reader. When content is static, the reader has to act, scroll and interact, forcing the reader to think for themselves.
S T A T I C
i remember walking
down 6th in Los Angeles
over near Spring Street
a movie crew stood around
talking in walkie-talkie's about
this and that
i stood and stared
an hour passed before
a tall man w/thin eyes
a car came around a corner
smashed into another
a guy jumped out
and started to run
before the director
a homeless guy
the scene, stopped
at a trash dumpster
pulled out some cans
and no one said a word
D Y N A M I C
(refresh your browser to watch again.)
QUESTIONS & RESULTS
I feel that the reader has lost many aspects of control the minute you put the content on the Web. However, this experiment is for Web based communications and whether Static design or Dynamic design is better.
I came to two conclusions: 1) if the reader has an interest in the content, then Static gives freedom to the reader allowing them to think through the content themselves as opposed to 2) if the reader has no interest in the content, then Dynamic will give them a chance to be told what the content says.
When the reader has control of the content (static), is the communication more or less effective than when the reader gives control of the content to the author?
More effective. It benefits the reader to pause when they need and move on when they need. If the content is designed properly, the pace should lend itself.
Is static design an outdated form of communcation? Is it more of an idea-stimulant?
No. Yes, it gives the reader control.
What do static design and dynamic design have in common? Do they both depend on rhythm?
They both tell a story. Each line is a step in the story line and each stanza is a new scene. Everything depends on rhythm, even reading the stock report.
Is dynamic design mere eye candy? Entertainment?
No. Especially not in this case, it's just as plain as the static page. It takes away the scrolling function and the line-break potential, as it controls the content.
Is static design is just informative? Serious?
Yes. According tot he author, but the reader can do whatever they like with it.
Which one stimulates the brain more?
Static. The reader is left with the decision making on pace and rhythm making their experience with the words their own.
Which delivers the message quicker? Better?
More memorable? More personal (w/emotion attached)?
These are subjective to the reader, depending whether they read fast, or are even interested in the content and care enough to move forward. The static design allows for that choice.
In what situations are these attributes relevant?
When the reader has an interest in the content. However, if they do not, the dynamic design is more enticing.
Does more dynamic mean more clear? Or overdone and confusing?
More clear. But perhaps not as beneficial.
Does sound integration fall into the category of static or dynamic's design communication?
It would improve both.
What leads the revolution: new eyes? or new authors?
New eyes definitely. New authors have to account for the new eyes that read their content.