pornjk.com npornk.com dpornk.com apornk.com zpornk.com xxxpornk.com xxxpornd.com sexpornd.com mpornk.com justpornk.com yespornk.com porn100.tv foxporn.me

Simple, clear copy (in any language)

One of the first rules of web copywriting is to use plain English, to give every reader the best chance of understanding your content. Your website is available to the entire world and will have visitors who have a first language different to your own. Don’t forget, however, that native speakers also have differing reading and writing abilities.

Writing in a simple, clear style benefits all users; it makes your website easier to read and understand (communicating your messages more effectively). Concise copy fulfils accessibility requirements for both people and search engines, making your website also easier to find.

Reading ability will vary within your own audience

The W3C’s WCAG 2.0 has a reading level criterion that says if the ‘text requires reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level’, a version that is not more advanced should also available.

This caters for ‘people with reading disabilities [which may include highly educated members of the intended audience] while also allowing authors to publish difficult or complex web content’.

Consider users with different native languages

Some websites (and printed materials) provide services for audiences that they know speak a different first language. These sites are often well written, with this fact at the forefront of their writers’ minds. As an immigrant in Spain, I’ve been experiencing this first hand.

I’ve had to sign up to all sorts of exciting (!) government departments, ranging from the local council to social security. Naturally, I’ve tried to find out online what I need to do (I speak some Spanish; learning more).

Where the language has been simple, structured in short sentences and paragraphs, I’ve had fewer problems. (There’s also a point about website usability, in terms of expecting certain buttons in certain places, but that’s for another day.)

This has only reinforced what I already know, but it’s good to be at the receiving end to remind me.

Mobile websites…or not?

Twitter has been buzzing about Jakob Nielsen’s latest Alertbox newsletter, in which he says:

“To solve the problems [users experience on mobile devices], websites should provide special mobile versions.”

My initial thought was that it makes sense in some cases. This is from the perspective of corporate, not e-commerce, websites, because this is where my experience lies.

Does it depend on audience need?

While mobile users may wish for the same experience as other users, for some audiences (such as investors) it comes down to wanting access to business-critical information as quickly as possible.

If this is via a simple site with limited navigation, then surely the minimal investment makes sense? An example is the Rolls-Royce dedicated mobile site, which has been around for some years.

Accessible websites already cater for mobiles

However, I’m not an expert in this area and it’s been interesting to read others’ opinions, especially in relation to accessibility. A particularly good article was posted by Iheni (and she should know, because she IS an expert), who basically said absolutely not:

“To me this just extends the problems of walled gardens for users and leads developers down the road of additional and unnecessary work.”

She goes on to highlight the overlap between the W3C’s Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), as discussed by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). If a website is accessible, by default it should be practically device independent too.

Corporate websites have more pressing issues

So, if companies’ sites complied to accessibility best practice, in theory mobile users would have fewer problems. I now wonder if some businesses might think that providing a separate site for mobiles would relieve them of some of the responsibility of creating more accessible websites overall?

Although as Graham Charlton at Econsultancy says, perhaps they should ‘improve the usability of their main website[s] before even thinking about mobile’.

I think this debate will run and run, and I’m going to follow it with interest.

Your life in their hands

Travel social networking sites have been around for some time now (some might say the market’s saturated), helping people to plan and write about their trips. The key element of many of these sites is helping people to meet up and make friends, as you would expect.

A couple of brave souls have gone further than this and actually put their travels in the hands of their networks. In 2008, blogger and journalist Vicky Baker wrote a weekly column in the Guardian about her travel-networking experiment across Central and South America. She based the entire three-month trip around meetings with, and recommendations from, locals she met online.

Then this week, I read about freelance journalist Paul Smith’s plan to hitchhike around the world in 30 days, raising money for charity:water. Here’s the catch: he’s going to rely on the Twitter community for offers of travel and accommodation, turning it into a ‘Twitchhike’ (his pun, not mine). He can choose from all the offers he gets, but if he can’t move on from a particular place within 48 hours, ‘the challenge is over and I go home’.

This got me thinking; what other parts of our daily lives could we throw to the social-networking wolves? Here are a few of my ideas.

  • Live for a week as instructed by your network: what time to get up, what to wear, what to eat and how to behave. Probably best to book a week off work first; rolling in the door at 11am in orange spandex leggings and purple eyeshadow might not go down too well. Especially if you’re a guy (although it would entertain your colleagues).
  • Let your friends choose your job: apply only for roles sent to you via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and so on. This is a good one if you don’t know what you want to do or lack the confidence to apply. Of course, this relies on people who actually know you to make suggestions. Or not. Hell, go crazy.
  • Everyone’s an agony aunt: this is a bit like the problem page in the newspaper, but with a twist. Post your latest emotional conundrum on your blog; see what your community suggests you do. Choose the best three responses (or get someone else to) and use the one that gets the most votes.

Do you have any ideas? Have you heard of anyone else doing similar things?

Originality is underrated

This might seem like an obvious statement, but I’ve been mulling over this a lot today. I know I should write more regularly on this blog, but I’m finding it hard to think of things that nobody else has covered a million (okay, ‘several’) times before.

In this new world of web 2.0, ideas are created and shared faster and more regularly than ever before. Or, thinking about it, perhaps there are the same amount of ideas but they’re shared MORE?

Like any self-respecting web ‘professional’, I have a profile on the requisite hat trick of social networks (Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook). I also read a long (some might say out of control) list of blogs. Hey, I’m a copywriter; I like to read and I also like to learn.

While most of the blogs do seem to come up with new angles on the same ideas, Twitter, for example, only seems to share and not create them. It’s got to the point where several people I’m following all RT (‘return Tweet’) the same idea in the space of minutes. Are the same ideas being shared because they’re great or because there aren’t that many original ones?

So, while I’m fending off this bout of writer’s block (or blogger’s block?), I’ll just keep reading my favourite truly original blogs for inspiration…

Well-written copy equals credibility

I’ve just stumbled across an article on Webcredible’s site, saying that now web usability is common place, web credibility is the ‘new’ differentiating factor between websites. Why the quote marks? Because I’ve just realised the article’s from 2004, after posting it to Twitter. Oops.

However, the comment still stands. People DO judge an organisation’s credibility based on its website (don’t you?). People form an opinion in an instant when visiting a new site, taking it with them when they leave, probably never to return again if it’s not good. You only get one chance, two if you’re lucky.

One of the criteria listed in the article is ‘Your website needs to have an air of professionalism and confidence’. How to get this? According to Webcredible, ‘crisp, professional layout with sharp graphics…free information…no dead links…an automated confirmation email when someone contacts you’.

The writer acknowledges that there are ‘many more’. I think there’s a glaring omission here though, which is more important than the other poor little items relegated to the ‘many more’ group. Well-written, error-free, interesting and relevant copy!

What’s more credible to you: a site that’s littered with spelling errors and articles stuffed with key words or a site that’s easy-to-read with uninterrupted, easy-to-understand text?

I’d say the answer’s obvious.