ISO interactive graphics

Posted on January 31, 2007 by Melissa Worden

I complained in an earlier entry about how hard it is to find multimedia on newspaper Web sites — but I’m also wondering: Why do a lot of papers choose not to create interactive graphics?

For example, this page on the New York Times’ site about Barbaro’s life and death, includes links to 2D print graphics that could easily have been turned into dynamic, interactive content.

Same with this story on NYTimes.com. The static graphic is even labeled “multimedia.”

Chicago Tribune’s interactive section just won a Digital Edge award (congrats to them!), but they, too, use recycled print graphics in this presentation, “China’s great grab.” (Read a great critique of this package over on Mindy McAdams’ blog.)

USATODAY,com, a paper known for it’s graphics, gets it. Most times, if there’s a graphic that needs to go online, they make it either a.) interactive or b.) look good on the page.

>> a.) This map, moves from a 2D graphic to one made for the Web. (Although, they could have taken it even a step further and let me hear the Q&A’s rather than read the quotes on those rollovers. But text keeps the graphic as a quick read, too.)

>> b.) And from the original story from which that map is linked, scroll down to the bottom of this page. Instead of using a small print graphic in a pop-up, they format it to be reader friendly for the Web.

Do papers think they’re not going to generate many page views? Are they not worth the return for the time investment? Or do we avoid it because it feels like shovelware?

Perhaps it’s all of the above?

But we’re missing opportunities to take advantage of the Web, and it’s the little steps we take that help move us away from being viewed by the readers as a text-only static site (aka, a print newspaper Web site) to an interactive multimedia generator and disseminator.

Comments

2 Responses to “ISO interactive graphics”

Patrick Beeson on February 1st, 2007 8:54 am

Do papers think they’re not going to generate many page views? Are they not worth the return for the time investment? Or do we avoid it because it feels like shovelware?

Perhaps it’s all of the above?

Yes to that last question.

I don’t think most newspapers have the staff or the time to take a print graphic and rub it down with Flash. Nor do I think its worth the investment (time being money) in most cases.

Now, if we were to take a reverse publishing model were by the graphic designers produce a Flash piece and make it static for print then things might work out better.

Of course, you’d have to pay higher salaries to those folks, which most newspapers seem loath to do IMHO.
angela on February 1st, 2007 12:16 pm

In our graphics department, two artists are beginning to learn Flash. But they both still have daily responsibilities for the paper. Since they’re new Flash programmers, it takes forever to produce anything…They haven’t discovered the deadline grind yet. So, interactive graphics are reserved for special projects that allow the artists a long time to work.