17 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

In close to a decade now of writing and editing copy for the web, I've found that the answer is neither long nor short. It's both. Like the approach you've taken with Basecamp.

Different users are going to have different expectations out of copy. But not only that, the same user is going to have different expectations. When they're in exploratory mode, they want things quickly, easily scannable and easily digestible. Things like bullet lists, tables, etc. work wonders for this. Short is good in this case.

But when a user is looking for detailed information or, in the case of something commercial, getting to the decision stage of the purchasing process, they want to be able to get more detailed information. Of course, in that case, longer copy (but still not more than is really necessary to get the message across) is going to be more helpful.

Which is why a hybrid approach seems to be best suited to strike a happy medium. People who want just the quick summary are going to be intimidated by seas of text, but people who want more information tend not to mind making a little extra effort to get it (with emphasis on the "little" bit - either scrolling or an extra page or maybe two). Give users both approaches, but keep the one approach hidden from the other, in a sense.

18 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

I am a firm believer in a hybrid approach, you have to give enough context so someone knows that it is worth digging deeper, but you cannot expose the entire content of the site on page one either. But the approach of the text is really important as well. Every user comes from a different context, so trying to write copy that speaks clearly to everyone is difficult. Part of the problem is the approach of only describing what something is:

After five minutes looking at the basecamp website I could not determine if this tool could replace something like Microsoft Project or if it was more of a to-do list, document, and communication manager. I find that sort of thing frustrating on so many sites, they focus only on what it can do, and leave you to figure out what it is not appropriate for. All sorts of communication is like that, if you only give WHAT IT IS you are not clearly defining it. We think a lot in terms of what things ARE NOT, so you leave out half the equation of understanding a concept. It does not have to have a negative spin either...

You can highlight your product by showcasing that it is the perfect compliment to a program like Project, which does not provide a way to manage a project, but rather, just the schedules of things. Having one place with communication and all of the documents in tandem with Project sounds great.

I run into this issue all the time. Its as if being honest about the limitations of your product is doing it a disservice. If so, then your product really won't be successful in the long run. I'm not saying that is the case with basecamp, but it is a subconscious aversion that I believe affects the copy.

18 Nov 2004 | chris said...

I was just wondering if you meant to not include a background color for your body. Since I've changed my default background color from white, I've noticed many sites don't bother to declare a background color and was wondering if this was intentional or not.

18 Nov 2004 | lost...and not the tv show said...

But, I thought bullets were bad...?

18 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Hybrid is usually the way to go.

One thing I've always really liked about the 37signals home page was the way you present concise, targeted business info at the top of the screen, and go into more detail towards the bottom. I think it satisifies most people's "instant gratification" conditioning (not to mention being respectful of their limited time), and not only provides more detail for those who want it, but actually draws them in so that they DO want it.

18 Nov 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Most of the sites I work on are educational or informational, so they tend to be text-heavy. I've noticed that many users of my own site (on wooden flutes) print out pages for reading offline, and for that reason I stick mostly to long pages broken up by subheads rather than splitting the topic across many smaller pages. In some sections of my site where content will remain static, I also provide a PDF version that people can download for printing or viewing offline. I did that with a long, multi-page interview, for example, and more people are downloading the PDF than are viewing the HTML version.

18 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I use an "Elevator Speech" as the main text, with a "read more ..." link when writing for the web. Best of both worlds.

18 Nov 2004 | Mr. Nosuch said...

Long copy vs. short copy isn't what matters. What matters is EFFECTIVE copy.

Frankly that study has such low conversion rates it's hard to plot any kind of trend. I think their results have more to do with the number of clicks the ads got (which seems to be random and unrelated to the test) then to the copy people landed on.

I think it's pretty obvious the hybrid approach applied well is the best answer. Rarely do people make purchasing decisions on just one page, but overall site experience, especially when making purchases about web based services.

18 Nov 2004 | lisa said...

don's back! yay!

on the long v. short, it's hard to hold my attention unless i'm really interested in the product/service OR you can grab my attention in those few lines.

18 Nov 2004 | Doc Banks said...

Depending on the data source you use, you'll find that as many as 51% of American adults are either functionally or marginally illiterate. When faced with a reading challenge, they'll literally or figuratively "turn the page" rather than meet the challenge.

To be effective, all copy should be written like advertising copy, i.e. writing in headlines. Other good copy models are the classic newspaper "inverted pyramid," and the "high-performance business letter" (conclusions in the first 'graph, with supporting copy below).

Further, break it up into bite-sized pieces. Paragraphs are our friends, and run-on sentences are our enemies.

Use juicy descriptors and tell stories. (See Sports Illustrated and Car and Driver magazines for superb examples of this style of short-form writing.) Give examples and don't expound or preach. Be friendly. Be brief.

Dr. Plainspeak

18 Nov 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I still think it really depends on the subject matter. For e-commerce sites, I'd follow most if not all of "Dr Plainspeak's" advice. But I could show you educational or research-oriented sites that flout most of that advice and yet are still regarded very highly by users, win awards, and get a lot of visits.

Rules for copy are not one-size-fits all; you have to consider your audience, the subject matter, and the goals of your site.

18 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

This all seems like common sense, doesn't it? Some people want the overview, and then some people want the details. Some people want both. The web is ideally suited for that.

21 Nov 2004 | Jesse B. Hunt said...

I noticed that this post didn't even mention the effect that the length of the copy can have on search engine placement.

Long copy, in my experience, works better for the search engines, but seems to intimidate the visitor. Short copy is not as effective for the search engines, and often leaves the visitor looking for more information.

Therefore, I too am going to cast my vote for a 'hybrid web copy.'