60 Minutes- How It Breaks Down

The 60 Minutes web site has its ups and downs but proves to be a generally easy site to read or scan.

Length of Text- Text length could be considered a problem for the 60 Minutes site. On the main page the paragraph describing stories are short enough for people to actually read them, but once the user gets into the story they have to face multiple pages of text. The writing is broken up into short paragraphs such as in print journalism, so it isn't a solid wall of words, but it isn't much better.

Scannability- I'd rank the 60 Minutes blog as above average when it comes to scannability. Much like the text suggests it sticks to concise text and objective language. The only knock I would put against it is that the text is sometimes clumped together. These occurrences aren't very common, though, and does not detract from the website as a whole.

Chunking- The main page of the 60 Minutes site does a good enough job on chunking. It gives a headline and brief paragraph of what the main stories are about and then gives to links, one for the video and one for the written story. However, when it comes to the written stories, there is something lacking. As Nielsen pointed out in his own story, some the of the 60 Minutes' stories are overly long and do not give clue as to what the next page could be concerning. Nielsen's example story just said "continued" whereas the 60 Minutes' story just give page numbers.

Headlines- If I were to judge 60 Minutes' headlines on the criteria listed in Nielsen's book, the website would be rated poorly. Nielsen clearly states that internet headlines should clearly explain what the article is about in terms that relate to the user, and that it should not use "cute" or "clever" headlines. Today's big stories fail both of those requirements. Most headlines are nouns without given context, such as "Afghanistan: Golf Company," and some are what could be called "cute" or "clever," such as the headline "The Birdmen." However, once the user clicks on a link to the story a new headline appears meets the criteria better.

Copy Editing- I have not yet noticed any grammatical mistakes, spelling errors or factual smudges, so 60 Minutes appears to be spot on in regards to copy editing.

Use of Inverted Pyramid- The use of the inverted pyramid is in use on the home page as well as the stories featured on the site. On the home page, the more recent and impacting stories are featured on top trailing down to the less relevant stories near the bottom. And when it comes to the written stories, they follow the inverted pyramid when it comes to the flow of facts through the story.

Page Titles- Every page title is clearly marked and indentifiable. No qualms with 60 Minutes here either.

Legibility- Legibility is a-OK with 60 Minutes, too. The site does not employ any weird fonts or text in any difficult colors. The text is typically white or light blue on a dark background, often black or a very dark gray. There has yet to be a portion of the site that isn't perfectly legible.

Today's top story is regarding the marines stationed in Afghanistan and how they are being forced to work with a new strategy. The story really focuses on how tough it is for them in Afghanistan and how dangerous Afghanistan really is right now. The story itself, while interesting and informative, isn't really anything new for the web site. They've done stories similar to this before, and it's a type of story I feel I could have read anywhere. And, again, it's four pages long which is a hefty article for anybody to read online.