|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Theatre Websites, a ReviewDateline: 10th October, 1999 I cannot begin to estimate how many British theatre Websites I look at in a year. It's certainly hundreds, but I really wouldn't like to try to be more definite than that. All I can say with certainty is that rarely a week goes by when I do not look at around a dozen sites. Quite what this qualfies me as being I wouldn't like to say! About.com would say that it makes me an expert on British Theatre on the Web: others might suggest that it makes me a very sad person! All I know is that it gives me a pretty comprehensive view of how all aspects of theatre in the UK present themselves to the cyber-population. I first did a survey of the quality of British Theatre sites back in May '97 and it's a topic I keep coming back to. At that time there were less than a hundred sites in the Links Libraries - I think there were only six Libaries then anyway. Boy! how we've grown! Now we're listing..... I just started to count them and reached 402 in just four pages, with another 24 pages to go, so I gave up. A pretty good guesstimate says there are well over 2000, and the number's growing all the time, for although some do vanish, there are more than enough new ones coming online to make up the losses. But it's quality rather than quantity that counts, so how do sites in October 1999 measure up to those in March '97? Far better, is the short answer. In design terms, the quality of theatre (i.e. everything to do with theatre) sites in '97 was, to put it kindly, generally pretty basic. When a really good site came along, it shone out like a beacon. Now most sites are designed rather than put together, although there are still too many for my liking whose authors seem to believe that design means using as many fonts and colours as possible. To be fair, however, they now tend to use different colours and fonts on different pages, rather than all on the same page - something which made a number of sites back then almost unreadable, because they gave you a headache! And very few sites nowadays go to the opposite extreme, being satisfied with browser default mid-grey. But the biggest transformation has been in the content. There are still those theatres, both amateur and professional, which simply put their print brochure online, but their number is decreasing as people become more computer literate and realise that reading something on a screen is not the same as reading a print publication. Interactivity has increased; there is a greater use of sound and even video, and no longer are most pages flooded with huge, bandwidth eating images which add nothing to the visitor's experience and enjoyment. There are still too many splash screens which do nothing but stand between the visitor and the information they are seeking. One of my pet hates is those sites which open with a screen which says "The XYZ Theatre", followed by the word "ENTER". What a waste of time and bandwidth! I wonder how many potential visitors arrive, see the word "ENTER" and say, "No, I won't!" Quite a number, I would think. Whenever possible - and it isn't always - I will not link to one of these pages, but always to the first genuine page on the site. Another turn-off for me is the over-use of animation, whether animated gifs, Shockwave or Javascript. One is OK, but when you have marquees flashing away, letters being written, folded and put in a mail box, titles waltzing across the screen and pictures changing continually, all on the one page, I for one tend to want to throw things at the screen. Whilst on the subject of pet hates and turn-offs, perhaps I should get all mine off my chest:
So what things do I like in theatre sites?
But the important thing is the content. Web authors must realise that their sites will be seen (possibly!) by people from all over the world, so content which is parochial is a big no-no. And that applies particularly to amateur theatre sites. No one in their right mind would create a site which is purely for the members of the society: it takes far less time and effort to produce a typed or word-processed and photocopied newsletter to communicate with them. Amateur site Webmasters/mistresses must think about what visitors will be interested in - and that certainly isn't gossip and in-jokes! Visitors will mainly be people from other amateur societies looking to see how what they do compares with others. They'll want to see the programme; they'll want to have information about facilities, and especially tech specs of the theatre; they might even be looking for help in solving problems which their society is facing. But it is unfair to castigate just amateur sites for these shortcomings. Many pro theatres make the same or similar mistakes. My vision of the Internet is of a massive library in which human experience in all aspects of life forms the content. Because it is my own particular interest, I like to browse around the theatre section and expand my knowledge and understanding of theatre. I want to learn from others' experience and expertise - and at the same time, in the sites I run, I want to share my experience and expertise with others. For me the Internet is the ultimate co-operative movement. When we read books or magazines, or when we see something on TV or listen to the radio, we are getting the experience and information which others - the writers, editors, programme-makers - have decided we should have. A censor is interpolated between the vast experience of others and ourselves. The Net removes this censor, these people who decide what we should or should not listen to or learn from, and gives us raw human experience Or it should. But far too many people impose limits on themselves: they perceive the Website as a brochure, a bit of advertising, public relations, a piece of propaganda. In short, they transfer the preconceptions of the traditional media to this new medium and, as a result, so many sites suffer from the greatest sin of all - blandness. < /sermon > Articles Indices: |
|
|