In the article, Hart illustrates his idea that success equals to the combination of content, structure and relevance. I agree with his idea partly, since success depends on the combination of much more elements than that of those elements. However, those three elements, content, structure and relevance, do play an important role in the web writing.
Let’s start with content. I cannot agree with it any more that content is one of the most important elements in web design or web writing. I would like to say that the web will be a fabulous but empty package if there is no well-designed content on it. Although the package looks pretty, its nature is always a package, which will not be changed by time. A well written content is composed by expert writing skills and good content itself. That is to say, web designer or web poster should be capable to distinguish the goodness or badness of a writing resource, such as news or entertainment. Then, the web designed should be able to figure out the preference of those web viewers, who is also the audience of the website. Personally, I do not think it is very easy to figure out the preference of others, but according to the function of their website and years-long work experience, web posters are supposed to have a clue on the preference of web audience. Writing skill is the other key to well-designed content. The function of writing skill is to glorify the content they posted on the web site. The content itself may not interest audience, but it supposed to be interesting and attracting after being glorifying by skillful technical writing. After talking about content, I would like to move to structure.
We cannot ignore the function of structure, since it is also one of the necessary keys to a successful website. At the first glance of a web site, people usually focus on the structure of the website instead of its content, which need to be read carefully. That is to say, web designers are supposed to arrange the content in a pleasant way, which looks comfortable and straightforward. I still remember the website shown by Dr. Liddle on class, a non-profit organization’s website. Maybe you will say that there is no structure on that website. However, I would like to say that it does have structure, a clear and straightforward structure. But, the disadvantage of that website is that its structure is too clear and too straightforward. I will lose my interesting and give it up if I have to view it for a long time. So, what those web designers need to do is to figure out web viewers’ preference and help them load their target in the shortest time. The word I would like to conclude the function of structure is efficiency.
Then, the third part is relevance. I have to say that this concept is a little bit new to us compared with those two before. As the author mentioned in the article, relevance depends. If the content of one post is about news, its relevance depends more on its timely. But if the post is about entertainment, its relevance depends less on its timely, at the same time, its relevance may depend more on audience’s preference or on its connection with the core idea of the web site. So web designers have to figure out what those audience are looking for before they consider about relevance.
The picture I used here is a short screen of a website which illustrates 404 using Venn. I would like to say that content is attracting and useful if it is a website about computer technology, since the connection between 404 and web’s core idea is pretty close. Then the structure of the page is clear and straightforward with the use of visual rhetoric. The left part is Venn diagram and the right part is the explanation of the Venn diagram. And the button on the top right is ready to lead user to the home page.
My question: In the structure, what is the difference between clear organization or tedious organization since I always mix them together?