News on paper or online?


I keep on repeating, article after article, on this blog, the concept of the “new web”, how this is a phenomenon much wider than all of us succeed in perceiving today, a dimension, a space, which will change the customs of this century. In a previous article, I have used some statistics in order to describe better this change which, in short, confirms that many of us are “always online” and that this “cyber presence” will continue to grow as far as involving everyone. The numbers give us important indications but, in my opinion, they don’t succeed in representing concretely the change. Much more is needed, therefore I would like to highlight, with the help of a real confrontation, what was “before” and what is “after“, the “real” and the “virtual“.
To do this I have analyzed an area of great interest where the two models, the descriptive sequential one of the 20th century cohabit daily with the new model, visual, fast and interactive of this 21st century, therefore of our times.
Last Monday I bought a papery copy of one of the most important Italian daily newspaper, and that is “Corriere della Sera”, and I read every single page, and soon after the same day, I browsed the version online of the same daily newspaper taking also some screen shots.
To my astonishment the two versions have very little in common. The papery version has a page structure on vertical columns, nine columns differently positioned with six main articles that continue within the newspaper and other six titles corresponding to articles also present inside the newspaper.
On the first “papery” page we find nine images, among these we find a cartoon and, in the four angles, small and middle advertising inserts. We find the same scheme the following pages, mostly characterized by long texts, with an average of two or three images (and some extra image on the sport page, it is Monday after all). The advertising is set aside in big “showcase-pages” made ad hoc.
The symbols used are only a few and the “infographic” elements are practically absent except for the page devoted to weather.
I think, considering the topics raised, the space devoted to football and motorbikes as well as the publicity offered, that this newspaper is oriented toward a predominantly male over 40 audience.
Let’s give a quick look to the version online! The first consideration is related to the contents, they are way different, the version online is updated, the dematerialized information can be updated at every moment, this is why the online site brings today’s news and the papery version yesterday’s news. The main news are all different, which is no small thing. The second difference stays in the number of the contents offered, the web page has an indefinite length and it is opportunely divided in horizontal areas, thing that imposes a certain visual order allowing an easy reading on horizontal sections, from left to right. There are dozens and dozens of articles. I counted the images and only on the homepage they are 142, I remind you that the papery version had only nine and almost all of them in small format.
On the version online they are more articles but shorter, many of them I wouldn’t even consider them as articles, but rather news. Their structure is rather simple and the terms used are basic, sometimes even elementary.
The page contains lots of interactive elements, slide showcases, photo gallery like “Photo story”, videos. Considering the high-level of innovation reached, personally, I would increase the use of the hypertexts, especially the hipertextual weave among the articles.
Paradoxically, the version online, though having much more contains and images, results simpler to visualize, browse and read, in some cases so simple and immediate to seem even banal compared to the “structured” papery version.
My tone in this comparison is deliberately simple, we are on a blog, even if, to say the truth, for an instant I have had the temptation to analyze the “wireframe” or rather the graphic model of design and communication on which the two daily papers are based on.
Seeing the different morphology of the “two daily papers” I’m inclined to believe that the audience is created by different types of people. The version online is oriented to young people and “medium” young people who use internet every day, and therefore who look for a quick reading as well as the latest news and who often choose on the strength of the visual impact due to the terms used and the images provided. The papery version is more reflective, for a less reactive audience, probably more cultured and less frantic.
The papery articles follow the tradition of the “printed paper” , they propose conjectures and showan analytical context. They have a sequential and progressive line.
The articles online are easy and immediate. Most probably the editorial office online is composed by different resources compared with the papery version. Maybe it has different work schedules, always active working on news in brief in contrast to the papery editorial office, more reflective and characterized by the “daily delivery.”
To put it in a nutshell, we have two types of audience, two editorial offices and two ways of operating the information. The splitting between real dimension and virtual dimension becomes more evident when we talk about the journalistic information. Two ways of spreading information, two excellences situated in two different universes, each of them with its rules and its audience.
In conclusion I would like to pay tribute to the “page footer” of the web version where we can find indicated various blogs and forum, a modern and dynamic version from which we cannot leave out of consideration the new ways of communication along with the new tools. My compliments go to the editors online who decided to make such a visionary choice transforming journalists into bloggers and bloggers into journalists.
Returning to the opening question, I consider absolutely anachronistic the diatribe between the information online and the real information, therefore also between the papery information and the information online. They are two complementary universes characterized by different dynamics of use, different services and, often, different audience. The auspice which closes this article stays in the hope that this difference would help to growa plural and well informed society.



Otto Neurath and the visual education through the use of symbols

post_signs_neurathEven if it is considered a phenomenon of this century based on innovative, technological and relational elements, I am more and more convinced that internet possesses deeper roots. The big inventions often have been inspired by intuitions happened in the past, the thread that connects the new to the past is thin but strong and, often, full of ramifications.
Already some article ago, deepening a piece of writing by Charles Percy Snow, PDF available online and recommended by this blog, we have seen how the impulses pro and cons innovation are far from a recent phenomenon.
Wherever we find the presence of intellectual ferments, we may also find visionary ideas or traces of what it could have happened.
It is the case of Otto Neurath, one of the illustrious members of the Circle of Vienna: Neurath considered science as a tool whose aim was the didactics, the education of the masses and above all, the overcoming of the cultural barriers due to the use of language as well as to the growth of the educational value of the information.
Again, the web comes to aid me by proposing me in PDF one of the Neurath’s piece of writing: “International Picture language the first Rules of ISOTYPE”, dated 1936.
The premise illustrated in this text is very present, and that is to capture the attention of that part of population we call today internet explorers or cybernauts, with a minor cultural and selective ability by using a simple and intuitive language.
The basic idea is to transpose abstract concepts in representations, icons, symbols, signals, graphic, images, accessible to anyone.
In fact this type of images has already had a remarkable diffusion in the twentieth century, probably also thanks to Otto Neurath’s concepts. We know that the first part of the twentieth century has been dominated by totalitarianisms powered by icons and symbols, real iconographies completely absorbed by their belief, so much absorbed that today they still don’t permit a division between the symbol and the catastrophes produced by these totalitarian regimes.
Nowadays we have, before our very eyes, examples much more “light”, our cities are full of signings, billboards and, above all, road signs that we know and we interpret readily. Furthermore our fashion, our style is deeply influenced by brands.
But what Neurath intended was, according to my interpretation, something wider, not an action of diffusion nor an advertising one, but an action aimed for a better propagation of knowledge and that is to succeed in transmitting information to the most careless consumers, less receptive, less competent.
Neurath believed that a language based on symbols could develop an educational role, could capture the consumers’ attention and facilitate the learning. Despite the great frenzy due to the modern life, this is the way considered to reduce the present urban alienation of the big centers, considerations applicable a century ago and still valid today, a century later. Considerations that are also at the root of the phenomenon “social” participatory present now online.
Neurath is referring to the mathematical symbols universally understood regardless of country or language.
But Neurath went beyond his theory’s proposal, he invented a true international visual language: “ISOTYPE International System of Typographic Picture Education “, its pages being rich of visual and tangible examples. Examples so concrete and illuminating to make him become one of the precursors, one of the reference points of the modern infographic, or rather, the whole of techniques and strategies aimed to the information’s spread in graphic – visual form.
Quoting wikipedia: “… In 1936, Otto Neurath introduced a system of pictograms intended to be the international visual language. Isotype, (this is the name of the group of pictograms), includes a series of stylized human figures that will be the base for the modern icons of human figures in the line-engraving manner…. “.
The quotation I consider more meaningful and immediate is precisely the one of Otto Neurath: “ISOTYPE is a helping language.”
Returning to our times, I believe that the cyberspace could represent the ideal field to sow icons and symbols.
My own experience, statistics in hand, permits me to claim that using symbols on the internet, approaches the users, especially the pro-active ones and stimulates the curiosity and the participation.
The pictograms, or better, their progeny, represent only a small part of the symbols’ universe present on internet, their number being in continuous growth. So, Neurath’s language, in its various forms, beat every expectation.
The symbol is equivalent to the service and it inserts the action, that if replied, becomes a visual and at the click habit, a fast process, partly instinctive.
More and more factors determine the increasing process of the icons and symbols’ diffusion and these are: the use of internet on smart phones, where the visual space is considerably reduced as well as the increasing speed of use, especially by the new generations, due to a daily use of chats, social networks, video games, APP, anywhere and anytime,…, the biggest exposure ever, global, of the consumers in relation to network.
Furthermore, I consider, as always, basing my statement on statistic data collected by me, that the new web induces the new generations to approach differently the vision of the web’s page, no more sequential from left to right. The digital native’s eye instinctively looks for the familiar symbol/icon, the links and the images, before reading the correlated contents.
Going beyond numbers and dynamics of use, I wonder if this action designed to simplify the words, could indeed represent a way to spread the knowledge and reach didactic purposes.
This sort of rejoining the ancient languages, the Anatolian hieroglyphics, Maya or Egyptians, as well as the language of signs, will allow us to maintain the same intensity and complexity of contents or a greater diffusion will determine in the long run a simplification of our grammar and thought?
I personally appreciate any attempt aimed to create new assonances, new connections, new stimuli  to the innovative presentation of contents, services, meanings, even more if created for educational purposes(things that unfortunately don’t happen very often on web) and, of course, if characterized by a strong participation.
I began to write this article some days ago, after having read some Neurath’s pieces of writing. Normally, between the first draft copy and the final review of the article, I let a few days pass in order to better metabolize what I read and reflect on my impressions. During this period of time I happen to travel and, in a gas station, absentmindedly I went to the lady’s room, fortunately I was alone! You may say: it’s no big deal, these things happen! Well, while I was leaving the room a lady has kindly rebuked me by pointing her finger at the image on the door…
So once more… the power of symbols!