Writing online is very different than writing offline. You've probably heard this before, but do you know why and what those differences are?

Why is online writing different from offline writing?

The simple reason that writing online and offline are different is "time invested."  If you or I pick up a magazine or newspaper, we'll spend some time flipping through the pages and see if there's anything of interest, anything worth reading.

When we go online, we search for something specific, some topic or product or service that's of interest to us.  We can't "flip" through the Internet. And, because there's so much information available (more than I'm sure we could absorb in several lifetimes) we want to be able to quickly choose what's deserving of our attention and what isn't.

The only way to do that is to scan web pages. A website might have exactly the information that you and I are looking for, but if we can't discern that in a matter of seconds, we're off to the next search engine result. Which leads us to:

What are the differences?

The easiest way to explain the differences is to show you an example of each. This first example has been excerpted from How the Universe Began, an article from Plus magazine:

"A new theory was needed at the time because the original Big Bang model could not explain some of the most striking features of our Universe. Three problems were particularly bugging cosmologists: the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the magnetic monopole problem. The first of these addresses the fact that many of the Universe's physical features are roughly the same wherever you look. Travel a few million light years in one direction, and you'll find that the cosmic background radiation has pretty much the same temperature as you would have found by traveling the same distance in the opposite direction. If you encountered such a uniform temperature in, for example, a huge pot of soup, you'd conclude that someone at some point must have given it a good stir, so that hotter regions were able to trade some of their heat with cooler ones. Similarly, cosmologists concluded that different regions of the Universe must have been in contact at some point and able to influence each other. According to the original Big Bang model, however, such communication should have been impossible, as not even light could have traveled the vast distances between the regions in the time since radiation was released from matter.

The flatness problem, as the name suggests, involves the geometry of space. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, massive bodies curve spacetime. The shape of space is therefore intimately connected with the density of matter. Extrapolating back in time to just after the Big Bang, cosmologists found that the density of matter must have been very delicately balanced indeed: any more matter and the gravitational force would have been so strong that the Universe would have collapsed in a Big Crunch long before now; any less matter and the Universe would have long flown apart, becoming dark, empty and cold, and eventually dying in a Big Chill. Neither of these has happened, so the density of matter must have been just right. In fact, the value that the density must have taken is precisely the one guaranteeing that the Universe's geometry is Euclidean: it is not positively curved — the two-dimensional analogue of this would be the surface of a sphere — or negatively curved — like, in two dimensions, the surface a saddle — but flat. Surely this apparent fine-tuning is more than just a coincidence and any decent theory should be able to explain it.

The third problem involves unusual particles, including some that are akin to magnets with only one pole. These don't exist, you might say, and you would almost be right: they have never been observed. Unfortunately, Big Bang theory predicts that lots of these particles should have been produced at the birth of the Universe. The big question, then, is where on Earth and in the Heavens they are".

Contrast this with my re-write of the same excerpt:

New Big Bang theory needed

The original Big Bang model could not explain some of the most striking features of our Universe.  3 problems in particular were bugging cosmologists:

1. The Horizon problem

According to the original Big Bang model, it would have been impossible for different regions of the Universe to influence each other, because not even light could have traveled the vast distances between the regions in the time since radiation was released from matter. However, cosmologists have found the following to be true:

• Many of the Universe's physical features are the roughly the same wherever you look
• If you travel a few million light years in any direction, you'll find the cosmic background radiation has pretty much the same temperature
• If a pot of soup had similar uniform temperature, you'd conclude that it must have been stirred so that hotter regions were able to trade their heat with cooler ones

Consequently, cosmologists concluded that different regions of the Universe must have been in contact at some point and able to influence each other.

2. The Flatness problem

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, massive bodies curve spacetime. The shape of space is therefore intimately connected with the density of matter. Extrapolating back in time to just after the Big Bang, cosmologists found that the density of matter must have, in fact, been very delicately balanced:

• Any more matter and the gravitational force would have been so strong that the Universe would have collapsed in a Big Crunch long before now
• Any less matter and the Universe would have long flown apart, becoming dark, empty and cold
• Neither of these has happened, so the density of matter must have been just right

Consequently, the value that the density must have taken is precisely the one guaranteeing that the Universe's geometry is Euclidean: it is not positively curved- the 2-dimensional analogue of this would be the surface of a sphere- or negatively curved- like, in 2 dimensions, the surface of a saddle- but flat.

3.  The Magnetic Monopole problem

The Big Bang theory predicts that lots of unusual particles, including some that are magnets with only one pole, should have been produced at the birth of the Universe. However, they have never been observed, so where are they?  The theory of inflation provides an answer to this question:

• Just before inflation started, the Universe was still small enough for all matter and energy to interact and find an equilibrium that guarantees homogenity of physical features
• Inflation also worked to smooth out the Universe's shape: the math underlying the theory shows that any old initial curvature would have been driven close to flatness by the process of inflation

Consequently it's no longer necessary to assume that the Universe started out in a curiously fine-tuned state. Although inflation does not do away with magnetic monopoles entirely, it predicts that they should be so sparse in space that it's no surprise we've never come across them.

Which is more likely to be read?

Whether you read either of the examples above, I think you'd agree that if you were looking for information on the beginning of the Universe, you would be much more likely to read or scan the info in example No. 2.  It's made to be scannable with short sentences, headings, subheadings and bullets.

The  content on your webpage is important. It's what helps sell your product, service or ideas. Don't force your visitor to click away because you've laid it all out in dense blocks of text. Make it easy for them to find the information they need. It's not a magazine or newspaper article. It's not an essay or a book, it's a webpage.

Online writing is different from offline writing. I hope you've found this post helpful. You'll find this other article I've written, Headings, Subheadings, Bullets and Scannability, helpful as well.

Comments...

Have a comment or other examples? Please let me know.

You see the guy to the left with his finger on the mouse? As soon as he comes across something on your website that makes him have to stop and think, doesn't work the way it should, isn't easy to scan, etc., etc., he just clicks on that mouse and he's at your competitor's website. It's that easy. And, he'll probably never come back to your site again.

We all know about testing headlines and advertising copy. Have you ever thought about testing your website from your client's perspective? No matter how easy, simple, and intuitive you think your website is, if your visitors don't, that's all that matters.

 
What is usability?

Usability, with respect to websites, is a quality or measurement of how easily your site allows your users to achieve their goals. These goals might be gathering information, purchasing products, subscribing, and comparing, among other things. You want their experience with your website to be positive and encourage them to return.

 
Why should it matter to me?

You know your website inside out. You either designed it or helped with your input. Every function, every word on the site is crystal clear to you.

• But what if it isn't so clear to your users?
• What if they're not sure what you're offering?
• What if they're not sure what they can do on your website?
• What if they get lost?
• What if the words are unfamiliar?
• What if they just don't understand the purpose of your website?

Do you think they're going to email your or call you and ask their questions? No, they're going to leave, just like you and I do. It's too easy not to leave. The next website is just a mouse click away.

 
Okay, I get it. What do I do now?

You need to test and test often. Most likely your website is constantly changing. New features added, old features removed. New content, new copy. It doesn't remain static.

No matter how easy, simple, and intuitive you think your website is, if your visitors don't think that, nothing else matters.