Will Newspapers ever understand the virtues of news without paper?

A TV news story of over 100 words is considered unusually long, the same goes for radio, and even newspapers have limits on the amount of space available to a story. The web doesn't suffer such constraints. It can deliver the in-depth analysis and background information other mediums can only dream about.

1997 was hyped as the year the World Wide Web would lead the way in breaking news and delivering current events. Unfortunately, the shiny new technology was caught with its trousers down when Judge Zobel decided to release his judgement, concerning Louise Woodward, over the Net.

This was hailed as a milestone in the Web's development - until the number of people trying to get at it made it fall over. In the end, most of us got the news from the radio - still the most efficient medium for breaking news to masses of people simultaneously.

But there have been some successes. For example, in March, the Dallas Morning News published an exclusive story about a confession by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on the Internet rather than in print and the best Kobe earthquake coverage was on the Web.

Recently there has been a proliferation of Net news services: CNN, PA News and most major newspapers now have a presence. Even the BBC's news and Sport comes as a Channel with Microsoft Explorer 4.

So, looking at the web site's of three daily newspapers one wonders, are they just a pastiche of their printed counterparts or do they use the unique qualities of the Internet?

The Times http://www.the-times.co.uk
Designed in house

The Times and The Sunday Times Internet editions, have been going since January 1 1996 but In terms of design The Times is behind the times and a recent facelift has failed to improve matters.

The pages download quickly - a point in its favour - but the site uses frames to force a 640 X 480 page resolution. Consequently, the web site's layout looks rather odd on most computers. Did no one tell them, nowadays the commonest screen resolution is 800 X 600.

Unless a Web site benefits from using frames why bother? In this case the frames serve no function and are actually irritating. For example, if you want to print a page you must remember to select the correct window by clicking it or you will print an empty sheet of paper.

The content is similar to the printed version. There are three main areas - The Times, The Sunday Times and Resources.

The printed issue from December 16 (cost 35p) has the headline 'Britain puts health ban on EU beef'. The Web site has the same headline and the same story - no more no less. The links on the page will only take you to related stories in that day's issue. There are no local or external archive links on the page and if you want to find related articles you have to search the back issue section.

On the whole The Times Web site is competent but it's not using the technology to its full potential. If visiting the web site is going to cost you more than 35p in online charges you will get a better deal by buying the printed version.

The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk
Designed in house

The nice thing about the Guardian is that you don't have to fill out any of those tedious registration forms and it doesn't ask for a password. You go straight in and it deserves full marks for this, but what a boring first page. It lacks character and the only clue to its identity is the words 'The Guardian'. OK, this is a bit of a giveaway but better branding would increase its authority.

The issue printed on December 16 for 45p doesn't give the Web site URL and has the headline 'Fatal flaws in murder inquiry'. This is also the leader on the Web site. The story concerns the brutal murder of Stephan Lawrence and the failure of the authorities to bring the culprits to justice.

As with the Times, The Guardian doesn't go the whole way, it gives us today's article and leaves it at that. This is just not good enough. We want to follow the story with links to pervious articles and we'd like to see some kind of summary or background feature.

On the plus side the site works well; pages load quickly and there are some nice touches such as a Java driven Notes and Queries section. There's also an archive, an online section and RecruitNet, which is basically a section of job advertisements.

Both the Times and Guardian are good Web sites but the designers are thinking in terms of traditional print on paper. Because of this they fail to deliver any of the advantages they could gain from being on the Web. However, The Daily Telegraph is in a different league these fellows really understand the medium.

The Electronic Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Designed in house

The Electronic Telegraph has been on-line since November 1994, so has a head start in the game. Unlike many other on-line newspapers, it takes full advantage of the Web's attributes using hypertext linking to related and previous stories.

The design of the site has character and the navigation is well thought out. The first page is quite large at around 95K but because UUNet/Pipex, one of the biggest commercial Net providers hosts them, the modem download speed is close to its theoretical limit. The page arrives within 30 seconds.

The print issue of December 16 cost 45p and leads with 'Ban raises fear of new beef war'. The Web site runs with this story also but in addition there are external links to; CJD and BSE Information at the Department of Health, the BMJ's BSE-CJD page and the UK CJD Surveillance Unit. The article finishes with seven links to previous Telegraph articles going back to December 1 1997.

The Web is perfect for this type of presentation. It doesn't compete with the established news media and brings us a new way of assimilating news. So it's not hard to see why the Electronic Telegraph gets around forty thousand hits a day. Full marks for showing us the way.