Automating marriage | The New York Times’ new online form
– posted August 13th, 2009 by Randall Snare Comments (5)
I’m obsessed with the New York Times weddings section. Mostly because it’s so stupid. Here’s an example of one of my favourite entries, announcing the marriage of Elly Truit and Tick Ahearn in 2005:
Ms. Truitt, 30, is a candidate for a doctorate in the history of science at Harvard, where she also received a master’s degree in that subject. She is also a graduate fellow of the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She graduated magna cum laude from Wellesley and has a master’s in medieval history from Cambridge University in England.
Mr. Ahearn, 31, is known as Tick.
The best juxtaposition ever.
Streamlining the wedding announcement process
Last week, the Nieman Journalism Lab wrote about the New York Times’ new online forms for wedding announcements. Here’s what it looks like:
According to the New York Times online, this is a much more efficient way to organise their data. This is clearly true, but it raises the question: when does content become data?
What are online forms for?
We’ve written a fair amount about how to create a useful online form. Forms are normally used for purchases or applications, something where data is clearly data: your address, your credit card details, etc. Data are discrete bits of information. Up until now, I’ve never seen a form for generating an article.
We can argue that these announcements are barely articles. There’s not much of an editorial hand in listing names, occupations, parents, and dates. In fact, here is the NY Times’ tips for writing a good announcement.
We can ignore the fact that apparently you need a masters degree in order to fall in love, and notice that they have created data out of what we would normally view as a written article, a piece of journalism.
The Semantic Web
Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. And the semantics of the web means the study of words in terms of tagging. It’s a way of organising information (words) so that people can find that information, not for any other organising principles. This means all content on the web is data.
And this is the real way in which the web influences the way we write. Never mind the short paragraphs, bullet points, headings and subheadings; never mind the free versus paid for online content. It’s really the fact that when we write on the web, we’re writing in a giant database. This is what’s truly new and what I think will really change journalism.
Do you think there’s a difference between data and content? Is it only the setting of the content (the web) that has sparked this change?
Digg this post Submit to del.icio.us Submit to technorati
Categories Content, Design, Writing for the web
5 comments so far
1. Lara Walsh on Aug 13th, 2009 - 15:27
Interesting (and entertaining) article.
I think you’re heading into semantics there though asking what’s the difference between data and content (pardon the pun).
If you think of data as information, and content as providing information, then they are very very similar indeed.
However, how that information is displayed separates good (and entertaining) content from raw data. Yet another reason why it’s important to learn good grammar techniques.
Eats, shoots and leaves, anyone?
2. Des on Aug 13th, 2009 - 15:54
One example of forms generating content:
http://www.brstfilms.com/users/tomklensi.html
3. Randall Snare on Aug 13th, 2009 - 16:16
That’s a good question to raise, but I don’t think the distinction between content and data is simply mode of information, or level of entertainment. The difference lies in the context of the information and what happens to it when you separate and sort it. Content before the web lived solidly in its own parameters whereas now it’s part of the whole. And purists (including myself to an extent) may think that the migration from content to data is bad, but it could be a really interesting development, depending on what people do with it. A la the Tom Clancy plot generator.
4. Morgan on Aug 14th, 2009 - 23:42
I want to know more about Tick!
But here’s my 2 cents. Forms enforce structure: good for data integrity, limiting for freeform creativity.
Data v content is a ying-yang struggle: pointless. Both are part of a bigger whole. Both deny the value of the other. Both need each other to make any sense of themselves.
This is a battle that will run forever. Wiser souls reconcile both parts for a better outcome.
Entrenched fools deny the other: crap the inevitable result.
5. Randall Snare on Aug 17th, 2009 - 09:18
Tick has nothing going for him.
I don’t think the distinction between content and data is necessarily a struggle. You’re right that trying to find a ‘winner’ is pointless, but in terms of writing, it’s really interesting. What happens to a narrative when you lose linearity?