How Users Read On The Web
They don't. People rarely read web pages word by word. Instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences.
In a recent study, John Morkes and Dr. Jakob Nielsen found that 79 percent of test users always scanned any new page they came across; only 16 percent read word-by-word.
A number of approaches can be used to help provide scannable text:
- Highlighted keywords – hyperlinks serve as one form of highlighting; typeface variations and color are others.
- Meaningful sub-headings.
- Bulleted lists.
- One idea per paragraph – users will skip over any additional ideas if they are not caught by the first few words in the paragraph.
- The inverted pyramid style, starting with the conclusion.
- Half the word count (or less) than conventional writing.
The study found that credibility is important for web users, since it is unclear who is behind information on the web and whether a page can be trusted. Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics, good writing, and use of outbound hypertext links. Links to other sites show that the authors have done their homework and are not afraid to let readers visit other sites.
Users detested "marketese"; the promotional writing style with boastful subjective claims ("best ever") that currently is prevalent on the web. Users are busy: they want to get the straight facts. Also, credibility suffers when users clearly see that the site exaggerates.
Measuring the Effect of Improved Writing
To measure the effect of the content guidelines identified, the study used five different versions of the same website (same basic information; different wording; same site navigation). Users were then asked to perform the same tasks with the different sites. As shown in the table below, measured usability was dramatically higher for the concise version (58% better) and for the scannable version (47% better). When the ideas for improved writing style were combined into a single site, the result was truly spectacular: 124% better usability.
| Site Version | Sample Paragraph | Usability Improvement |
|---|---|---|
| Promotional writing (control condition) |
Nebraska is filled with internationally recognized attractions that draw large crowds of people every year, without fail. In 1996, some of the most popular places were Fort Robinson State Park (355,000 visitors), Scotts Bluff National Monument (132,166), Arbor Lodge State Historical Park & Museum (100,000), Carhenge (86,598), Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer (60,002), and Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park (28,446). | 0% (by definition) |
| Concise text with about half the word count as the control condition |
In 1996, six of the best-attended attractions in Nebraska were Fort Robinson State Park, Scotts Bluff National Monument, Arbor Lodge State Historical Park & Museum, Carhenge, Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer, and Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park. | 58% |
| Scannable layout using the same text as the control condition in a layout that facilitated scanning |
Nebraska is filled with internationally recognized attractions that draw large crowds of people every year, without fail. In 1996, some of the most popular places were:
|
47% |
| Objective language using neutral rather than subjective, boastful, or exaggerated language (otherwise the same as the control condition) |
Nebraska has several attractions. In 1996, some of the most-visited places were Fort Robinson State Park (355,000 visitors), Scotts Bluff National Monument (132,166), Arbor Lodge State Historical Park & Museum (100,000), Carhenge (86,598), Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer (60,002), and Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park (28,446). | 27% |
| Combined version using all three improvements in writing style together: concise, scannable, and objective |
In 1996, six of the most-visited places in Nebraska were:
|
124% |
It was somewhat surprising that usability was improved by a good deal in the objective language version (27% better). It was expected that users would like this version better than the promotional site (as indeed they did), but thought that the performance metrics would have been the same for both kinds of language. As it turned out, four performance measures (time, errors, memory, and site structure) were also better for the objective version than for the promotional version.
To explain this finding, the study conjectures that promotional language imposes a cognitive burden on users who have to spend resources on filtering out the hyperbole to get at the facts. When people read a paragraph that starts "Nebraska is filled with internationally recognized attractions," their first reaction is no, it's not, and this thought slows them down and distracts them from using the site.