AOL File Library: 9,300 to 9,399

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ AOL File Library: 9,300 to 9,399 / 9300.zip / AOLDLs / E-Zines / EZINE_ Online Insider 3.07 / soi0307.txt < prev

Wrap

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 24KB | 479 lines

============================================================================== Seidman's Online Insider ============================================================================= Weekly Summary of Major Online Services and Internet Events ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vol. 3 No. 7 February 17, 1996 ============================================================================= Copyright (C) 1996 Robert Seidman (robert@clark.net). All rights reserved. May be reproduced in any medium for non-commercial purposes, so long as attribution is given. Notes from the Editor ===================== Since I just got off a plane and have to get back on another one, your regularly scheduled edition of the Online Insider will be replaced this week with a couple of pieces written by some other prominent online voices. Thanks to Professor Donna Hoffman and Dominique Paul Noth for allowing me to run their pieces in my newsletter. Things will be back to normal next week with a regular edition of the Online Insider. See you then. P.S. My vacation was wonderful! PLUG-O-RAMA =========== If you haven't already checked out IBM's infoSage, you'll want to take a look at the latest version of the beta test < http://www.infosage.ibm.com > . Over 2,300 topics are now available to test and there are other improvements as well. Register, download the profile editor, fill out your profile and send it in then voila, you'll receive news and information on topics that are important to YOU. The beta test is FREE. Please remember that IBM has allowed me to continue with the newsletter and has even been extremely supportive, by giving me some company time to work on the newsletter. My boss, whatta guy! Somebody pinch me... Cyberspace to Congress: The Net is Mainstream -- and it Votes! ============================================================== By Professor Donna L. Hoffman You would think from the way that Congress is rushing to censor "indecency" on the Internet that cyberspace is a virtual den of iniquity and pornographic debasement. In the interests of promoting a bit more sanity in the halls of Congress, allow me to offer a few facts about the real nature of the "cyberporn" threat and about the character of the fast-growing community of Americans online. First, let's be clear that what we're really talking about here -- pornography -- actually constitutes an infinitesimally-small percentage of all online information. Indeed, Marty Rimm's ill fated study of pornography on the "information superhighway" revealed that less than 1/2 of 1% of all images on the Internet were likely to consist of porn. But never mind that somewhat inconvenient fact. Congress in its infinitely-debatable wisdom, has chosen to "save" America's children not by finally fixing our broken school systems -- that, after all, would be hard and complex work -- but by attempting instead to shield families from "indecency" (a sure vote-getter). But guess what? It turns out that the majority of online users are *not* lonely sex-deprived (or depraved) single males but families! That's right, 42% of those on the Web are married and another 9% report living with a partner, while only 41% are single. And 35% of Web-using households contain children. What's more, according to the latest GVU/Hermes survey of Web users, 29 percent of Web users globally are female (the percentage of female users rises to 33% in the United States), 40% are 36 years old or over, almost a third of the respondents make less than $30,000 a year, and nearly half make less than $50,000 a year. Indeed, the best research available indicates that cyberspace is increasingly going mainstream. Aside from the strong family orientation of Internet users -- and the increasing prevalence of women -- ever more middle-class and working-class people are joining the ranks of the "wired." Occupationally, more students, more people in sales and service work, more retired people, and more people in a more diverse variety of occupations (e.g. day laborers, crafts people, homemakers and others) are online everyday, as are people reporting smaller annual household incomes (especially under than $30,000). As for the political persuasion of Internet users, the facts are rather startling. Despite the image of cyberspace as some stomping ground of the liberal elite, the fact of the matter is that there are significantly more Republicans and Independents online than Democrats. And while online users are nearly indistinguishable from people not online in terms of political party affiliation and who they voted for in the 1992 Presidential election and 1994 House elections, online users are *much more likely to vote* than people not online. Consider the following statistics from the Times Mirror 1995 Technology in the American Household study: Party Identification and Voting Behavior Party Online Not Online Users Democrat 25% 29% Independent 43% 40% Republican 32% 31% 100% 100% 1992 Presidential Vote (among voters) Candidate Online Not Online Users Bush 37% 38% Clinton 44% 45% Perot 18% 17% 100% 100% 1994 House Vote (among voters) Party Online Not Online Users Democrat 43% 44% Republican 55% 54% Other 2% 2% 100% 100% Percent Who Voted in 1994 Age Online Users Not Online 18-29 32% 15% 30-49 58% 46% 50-64 80% 58% 65+ * 61% 100% 100% * too few cases to estimate reliably Source: Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press (now the Pew Research Center) "Technology in the American Household" 1995 study. Oh yes, and one other little tidbit for Congress to consider: the majority of online users *oppose* current efforts to censor content on the Internet. Given these figures, one has to wonder if the Republican Congress is shooting itself in the foot -- alienating precisely the constituency whose support it will need to win the White House in 1996 -- by voting for a censorship bill that will, according to virtually all constitutional scholars, in any event probably be overturned by the courts. Congress take heed: the citizens of cyberspace represent a politically diverse and demographically varied voting population. Attempt to censor them only at your peril. __________________________________________________________ Donna L. Hoffman is an Associate Professor of Management at Vanderbilt University and co-directs Project 2000 (www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu) at the Owen School. Headline: All the News That's Fit to Print Out! It's the New York Times' Full Web Launch =============================================== From Dom's Domain: Media Sites and Strategies Copyright Dominique Paul Noth January 21, 1996 After months of teasing us with special previews and alliances, the mother of all American newspapers blasted onto the Internet in late January with an immense site and precise goals that may prove the acid test on many fronts for the future of the newspaper industry in cyberspace. Now make no mistake. There is only one New York Times < http://www.nytimes.com/ > . What it decides to do flat won't work for smaller papers and selective markets. In fact, the Times could be their worst competitive nightmare, if they haven't already been scared to death by places like CNN < http://www.cnn.com/ >. Of course, it sometimes feels like there is more than one New York Times, at least online. A lot of this Internet content and classified searches are on America Online in the @times area. It's a partner in CareerPath < http://careerpath.com >. Both the fax version of the newspaper and some offerings of the Times syndication services are on the Internet, and were reviewed in a previous column. Perhaps deliberately, the Internet presence of the New York Times has been slowly unfolding, and only now has become a standing target. And this full web premiere is really something to check out and talk about. No other US newspaper has quite the brand and reputation for depth of this product. No paper brings with it quite the same concern for being a standard bearer of the industry. No paper on the Internet will be watched as closely over the next year. Its builders -- and those who have built news sites can appreciate what kind of technical headaches, internal debates and problem-solving went on -- have carefully weighed the lessons of 1995 and chosen not to wait (or not to design to fluidly incorporate) many of the possibilities for 1996. They have made a firm commitment to an omnibus approach, to existing navigational structures and to the central value of the product's journalistic reputation. But they have also added intelligent audio bells and communication whistles for the Internet environment. If, after the first few months of curiosity, they have not built a large, regular, committed computer readership, if their strategic decisions do not show good signs of improving the cyber bottom line while augmenting (as opposed to negatively affecting) their print product and print relationships, if advertisers don't respond to their decisions (millions of views guaranteed for big bucks, and the ads stay till they get the numbers, hopefully not till the year 2000) and see positive results in research and results, a lot of newspaper executives at their shop and at other shops around the country will be going back into the conference rooms, pointing to the Times experience and start rewheeling and redealing -- patience, alas, not being a virtue most newspaper companies bring to this marketplace. A Variety of Approaches From the start of its Internet efforts, the Times has clearly been concerned about retaining the look and aura of its print product, and on the web site the designers have gone for image maps that echo the print look -- not just on the entry page, but to handle each major section within the site, even retaining the masthead feel down to the individual stories. They do offer a low-speed version, plus you can select news by categories. The stories featured on their image-map pages often incorporate hypertext links and headlines to related content (mostly text but also color photos, maps and sound bites), and even lower down in the category lists you can see some efforts to add such hypertext connectivity. They have chosen small jpegs to open to larger pictures, short news sound bites (in .au format) and a recommended narrow set to your web browser size so that stories display in familiar single column format. There is a search engine to look by key words, there is a briefs news lists with intelligent summations linked to the full articles. There's even a scan of the print front page, which you can't really read beyond headlines but can use to see how the stories on the cyber front page were actually played on the print front page. Indeed, there is a constant referential sense to the arrangement of the print product even in areas like CyberTimes, but it is combined with a genuine sense of care, explanation and convenience for the Net user. Talking Times Thus there are very good starts on forums where users can participate (with promises of key personality participation), threads by topics and even an area where you can come in and discuss the web site, which visitors are doing, no holds barred. You can provide your own hypertext links in these forum threads, and I was amused at how some of the early visitors, including fellow newspaper colleagues, subtly invited visitors to leave the Times and click to their own sites! (Hmm, maybe I should go back on and put in my own site < http://www.arcfile.com/dom >-- that would be the first free ad the NY Times ever gave me!). The Times has done some shrewd work in its help area, so you can see a tree of where the content is, get advice on the best ways to navigate and read clear descriptions of their current services and future intentions. Of course you register (the script-writer here may have given away the future planning, since the button says "register," but the page is labeled "subscribe.html") but there is currently no charge in the US and you will be informed if they decide there will be one. There are all the smart moves of service and explanation -- verification codes, e-mail newsletters you can receive about site features and even, if you wish, information from their advertisers. And yes, once past the entry page there is an ad at the top, to the left of all those image maps. A key ingredient for the Times -- indeed, what looks like the main way they hope to make money in the near future -- is not yet operational: the archive search ($1.95 an article) and a clipping service ($9.98 a month, with discounts for home print subscribers) -- and it is the success of these enterprise that other large newspapers will be watching most carefully. As noted, a lot of content has been available elsewhere like America Online -- and some surprising elsewheres given the various Times alliances. In fact, I was amazed to find its feature story on art in cyberspace up at the Discovery Channel < http://www.discovery.com/ > before I saw it on the Times' own web site! Still, the web site is deeper in news, feature content and searchability, and seems fully committed to back-and-forward linking on key stories, infinitely more so than on the America Online verson. Solutions to a Puzzle And to answer the main question (at least it was the main question when the NY Times launched on aol!), yes, you can get and do the crossword puzzle. It is in the Lyriq software format (users of Digital Post on AT&T Interchange know all about this), which you must have on your own machine (free download and my family uses it regularly). You simply transfer the Times daily puzzle to you own machine (very fast), and either print it out or do it in the Lyriq software. The fact that you have such rapid options (but have to go back online, clever boys, to get the answers) is welcome, given how slow it still is to do a puzzle online. Other downloads are possible for the TV Host electronic television listings and for automated home market evaluations (an outside firm). What are some of the limitations? Well, the image maps, while simply done so they load quickly, still take time to contact and pull up, and speed will be an issue on a site of such immense content. It could be argued that in the debut mode the Times may have an abnormal number of visitors to tax its servers, but in reality they had to know that, and the speed with which people move on their first visits will haunt their memories whenever they want to go back. On my first several visits, there was a larger than normal difference between simply getting a straight text story or getting through a bin search. Even those with fast connections may want to turn off graphics if they're in a hurry, though that's not a full answer. Designed for Future? Still, I'm a patient guy, and some choices moved very quickly despite obviously heavy traffic. I did have the feeling at times that, even discounting server activity, I should have been able to select faster to what I wanted, and that was because of the brand image issue, the effort to always make the site look and feel like the familiar print version. In some areas and in some realities of computer navigation, those decisions were impeding the intuitiveness with which I could make my choices, despite all the thoughtful help material they've put there. What an organizational and design challenge this must have been, and you can't help but admire how the builders were trying at every level of service to build in clean options. They will learn from visitors what to add or subtract. If you look carefully at how the site is designed, the navigation doesn't exclude incorporating frames or applets or any of the other applications and add-ons heading our way over the next few months. But, in terms of plugging these things meaningfully into the current design, that I'm not so sure of. I don't think it will be easy -- such applications will at best change the nature of what a site does, rejuggle key habit arrangements and require new thinking about the look and organization of the content. It's my guess that the Times has committed itself to this current look and approach for quite a while to come and has to be hoping that 1996 doesn't bring the sort of sea-change of what's hot that site builders suffered through in 1995. I also feel the Times advertising strategy has not fully unfolded and that, prestige aside, it will have to deliver more integrated opportunities as time goes on. I also suspect that readers will seek even more lists, briefs and quicker searches. Does the Times blow the other big guys out of the water from a navigational or breaking news context? No. I can point to other sites that do a neat job in this area, even some newer ones such as the Philadelphia Inquirer < http://www.phillynews.com/ >. I think you could argue that they have applied the current lessons well but have not built or even tried to build a breakthrough site. What I do appreciate is that the New York Times, which is often regarded as high above us all, has put a lot of effort into inviting active participation by its Internet visitors. If they live up to that start -- actually do something with the posts and responses as opposed to letting them sit there, as some other newspapers have lazily done -- the Internet visitors will feel a personal connection, which is very important in terms of repeat visits. Truth is, the style, variety and prestige of the NY Times content would make it automatically a major player. Add to that how carefully and impressively they've done it, and it's clear that this site's impact will be vitally important to the future plans of other American newspapers. Competitors Should Start Worrying They haven't changed the game, but they have put some long-term problems into focus with this launch. The Internet is changing the balance of newspaper-to-newspaper relationships. Right now everybody is sweetly talking partnerships, but underneath executives are starting to seriously worry about letting the other person into the pool. For years the Times has sold its print product in many national markets, but the numbers it generates, and the limitations of its early shipped editions, haven't made local newspapers hostile to its presence, not in most cases. For one thing, the local paper knows that the Times is often an add-on buy for the news hounds. And the New York Times News Service remains, in fact, an important, prestige addition to many newspapers' global and feature content, as is the New York Times Syndicate material. The Internet presence could change that -- especially if user numbers for national newspaper web sites increase down to geographical regions and levels (a big if, won't happen tomorrow, but still a real possibility). On the Internet, the alliances being formed by the Times and newspaper chains (with one hand on their own wallets to be sure, and the other hand protecting vital parts) could affect all print relationships and decisions. Consider just one area: the same content the Times provides at sizable rates to newspapers around the world is available for free, and actually faster, on the Internet. Now it is not the early edition but virtually the entire final, accessible simultaneously in Montana as well as Manhattan. And it could stay free. The Times hasn't shared its absolute future strategy -- it rightly should wait and see -- but it is not inconceivable that its daily newspaper site remains free (in the US, the paper already will charge non-US customers, apparently determined by domain) and the charges will be for special services, like archive searches. Don't just look at what that could do in the Times' home market. Will it diminish the value of taking the New York Times Service in a distant print marketplace? Does that change whether you should put your local paper on the Internet and what it should contain? And the Times is hardly alone, what with the Associated Press, Reuters and other national news services offering full information both on the Internet and through online services. Already there are notable newspapers as well as midsize and smaller newspapers that are just throwing up their hands when looking at the time and costs of providing national and international news with intelligent hyperlinks (as opposed to the generic lists that the web industry calls "shovelware"). Some are, in fact, offering readers links to national sites on their home pages rather than building it themselves. Or thinking of buying a service as opposed to editing the ones they get. Or using all this to confirm their belief that their future is local, local,local. Of course, if they link to a site like the Times, they are also opening the door for their local readers to access a lot of other kind of content, and a lot of other kinds of alliances, some of it quite local indeed. Who Will Live and Die? How many omnibus newspapers does the web have room for? (Not talking about space, talking about profitability.) Will a site like the New York Times excite more papers into ambitious web offerings? Or will it cause them to pull back, to wait and see before they decide how to expand? There are some newspapers that still think what they do on the Internet and what they do in their local market are really not closely related, but the New York Times on the Internet should change that thinking in a hurry -- while also delivering important messages on what the Internet community really wants and is willing to pay for in its dealings with newspaper companies. -- Dominique Paul Noth Provided through American Resource Company < http://www.arcfile.com/ >. Subscription Information ======================== To subscribe to this newsletter by e-mail: Send an e-mail message to: LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In the BODY of the message type: SUBSCRIBE ONLINE-L FIRSTNAME LASTNAME Example: Subscribe Online-L Robert Seidman If you wish to remove yourself from this mailing list, send a message to: LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM and in the body of the message type: SIGNOFF ONLINE-L . A Web version of the newsletter is available at: <http://www.clark.net/pub/robert>.