What I found was a "beta" site that was just plain NOISY. I don't think I ever really figured out what it was all about or where the real meaningful content was hidden...there was NO WAY this thing could have truly earned a "Cool" rating. I had to go back to the blog to check the date on the entry - maybe this was posted on Tuesday - as a clever April Fools prank...nope, it was new.
I happened to run into the author a few minutes later and got a rather disturbing story... Like me, he had found the site in need of considerable upgrade. True to form, he posted his unbiased and unabridged opinion on his blog - complete with a detailed list of issues that require improvement. (Fittingly - there was no "cool" rating awarded in this original posting)
What he probably failed to consider was that his wife's employer owns the site - so, naturally, she got a call into the boss's office, which led to a call to him with unambiguous instructions as to what she desired....and the honest, unabashed commentary was deleted. I wonder if this is just a small indicator of the inherent rivalry between the traditional press and the internet, which allows rapid dissemination of opinions and criticism without the benefit of political cleansing and quality checks at the hands of the editorial staff....hmmm, makes you wonder, doesn't it??
So, for those of you who might have missed the Ink.com buzz, here is a critical review for mass consumption:
I was just reading Mathew Ingram's remarkable post about the increasing trend of how news is consumed using social networks. He cites a remarkable quote from one 20-something, "If the news is important, it will find me."
The idea is that there just so much news out there that it's virtually impossible to consume it all. Instead, there is a faith that someone you know or trust will pass it on to you via email, RSS, Twitter, blog or other way. It's the new word-of-mouth for our century and it is replacing crushed trees smeared with ink as the medium of choice.
Coincidentally, today marks the launch of The Kansas City Star's new "lifestyle" newspaper named, anachronistically and without irony, Ink meant for the group Mathew Ingram talks about. There is a print tabloid version, but their website has user blogs and the ability to "friend" others into a trusted group. At first glance it looks like The Kansas City Star's team has put together something to face the future.
But it's awful.
It lacks RSS feeds. The advertising overwhelms the experience. The navigation is bereft of intuitive labeling and placement. The design has the sensibilities of a nausea-inducing MySpace profile. The blogs require "friending" to read, effectively shutting you out without a long wait. In short, it's unreadable.
The content seems like it might be worthwhile, but the design and usability obstacles are so big that I wonder if it matters. My first reaction might be a bit harsh for something that just launched and it does say on their site that it's in beta, but a launch is a launch.
Perhaps these are things they'll revisit and improve upon over time. I guess if it does, the news will find me.
UPDATE: Try Googling "Ink KC" or variations of it. They have *no* search engine visibility. I'd make that my first priority because I really want to see them succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment