Print vs. Online

Online NST

VS.

Print NST


Designing a document for print varies in many ways to one that is published online. This is due to the difference in audience and the expectancy of a unique format for each type of these documents. The importance of a proper layout in both online and print documents has to be taken into regard.

Parker (2003) states that single columns are not advisable for online sites and instead framing devices should be used. Framing devices will connect certain elements together and separate others, allowing a clear understanding for the reader (Kress & van Leeuwen 1998).

Print texts are considered to be more personal as compared to those online. This is due to the fact that readers are able to include their own cultural understanding into print, whereas when online, the multimodal features available provide obvious meanings (Walsh, 2006). Web users “do not read on web” instead they scan through the sites in search of a particular word of interest (Morkes & Nielsen 1997).

It is essential to “prune the content to suit reader’s interest” (Schriver, 1997) when it comes to online texts, whereas print texts are usually long and narrative. Unlike print texts, online documents are contributed to by people from all walks of lives. This casts doubt on their credibility which can be avoided by providing hyperlinks at the site (Morkes & Nielsen 1997).

Reference List:

1.Kress, G & van Leeuwen, T 1998, ‘Front pages: (the critical) analysis of newspaper layout’, in Approaches to media discourse, eds Bell, A & Garrett, P, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 186-219.

2. Morkes, J & Nielsen, J 1997, Concise, Scannable and Objective: How To Write For The Web, Useit.com, viewed 28 April 2008, <http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html>.

3. Schriver KA 1997, Dynamics in document design: creating texts for readers, Wiley Computer Pub., New York.

4. Walsh, M 2006, ‘”Textual shift”: examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts’, Australian journal of language and literacy, vol. 29, no 1, pp. 24-37.