Category Archives: ideas

Yesterday’s presentation at Porto’s University | Apresentação de ontem na U.Porto


So i was invited this week to give a talk to the Cyberjournalism seminar students at Porto University, and it wasn’t that bad.

I took the opportunity to present two ideas that i have and that are still under development: “The Upward Spiral- an information flow model” and “New properties of news contents”. I’ll develop these concepts sometime soon here in the blog.

I must thank the students who beared with and Helder Bastos, their teacher, for inviting me.

Ontem fui dar uma pequena palestra aos alunos de Ciberjornalismo na Universidade do Porto e não correu assim tão mal.

Aproveitei a oportunidade para apresentar duas ideias que tenho e que ainda estão em desenvolvimento: “A espiral ascendente- um modelo de fluxo informativo” e “Novas propriedades de conteúdos noticiosos”. Eu irei desenvolver estes conceitos em breve aqui no blog.

Queria agradecer aos alunos que me aturaram e ao Hélder Bastos por me ter convidado.

Information is free. Experience and context are money.

All in? I don't think so...

If you are reading this via RSS go to the real post to enjoy its full effect. There’s free beer.

This has been  in everyone’s mind: how to make journalism a profitable business? Ads, paywalls, premium and freemium contents, there have been many options, but none seems to be working. Murdoch builds walls while others [DDET tear them down.]

Recently Johnston Press decided to give up their paywall since the subscription numbers were appalling, in the single or low double digits.


The stakes are high, and yet everyone is showing how bad poker players they are, going all in when they don’t have to.

The biggest problem is that there aren’t many users willing to pay for information they know they can get for free someplace else or that is not important for them. I’m not, for sure. Besides, most of  the content news websites have to offer could be in print and my experience as a news consumer would be exactly the same, so why bother? So, how to keep those who want the free stuff, but how to profit from the content generated by journalists?

Imagine that you own a news content production company, and you have a team of talented people who can make good journalism, using [DDET different narratives;]
video, audio, charts, maps, or mixed interactive content, like audioslides, mashups, etc;

Exhibit A


Imagine you have those people willing to engage and participate with the community, not only to dig for stories or disseminate their work, but to enrich the community member’s experience with information about the process, or [DDET personal views on the matter;]


I think that transparency and time are two valuable items, and that time is the most valuable of them. Communities are part of the newsrooms’ life whether we like it or not, both in the construction and the distribution process. Journalists are the quarterback/midfielder (choose metaphor according to origin) of the news process, receiving the ball and creating options and deciding part of its course, although when it’s out of its hands/feet they should still be focused on the game but let the ball go. The rest of the team is community and the goal is to inform, and like in a real game there are less players than passive audience. I’m still working on this specific metaphor.

Still, people would be part of it, pitch their own stories, creating a crowdsourced model within a traditional news structure.


Imagine you have tools that allow you to add context or media or extra information like raw bulks of data and that your reporters know how to build an online article with all its basic features but also with extra content that enriches the knowledge and experience of the user, using your own archives, other people’s archives, other websites that you found relevant to the story, ongoing conversations on Twitter and Facebook, ;

Imagine that. And think how you can do all of those things, with the same time, trained to deliver the basic and the ultimate news content. And consider to make some of that ultimate content available for free, just like the basic takeaway content you have. And ask people to pay a fee for the rest, and allow them to embed videos, slideshows, audio in their own websites, and help them look cool in their community because you create cool content. You don’t need to charge much because you are building a brand. The light bulb was sold below production price in the beginning  because it was something everyone would use, and after a while, production costs lowered because there was a lot of demand, and then there was profit.

So this is how I perceive the future of the business will be, a mix between several models, that favors smaller endeavors than juggernauts, and based on quality and engagement, and new ways to create traditional content, in a contextualized way.

So, a rough example would be:

mock news picture

[DDET When,] tell if the situation is still ongoing and you can read more about it here (linked to related article) or it had a previous related event to which we will also link to or show the related media, or even better a timeline of the events [/DDET][DDET what happened,] specific details, more pictures, detailed info, background info [/DDET] where , who was involved, [DDET how yes free yourself! [/DDET]and a basic WHY (that could be expanded to whatever you’d like). If it looks short to you, well, most of the info people read out of articles is all in the first paragraphs, where the w’s and h are.

People would have to pay for the contextual information in the expandable items. This doesn’t mean the free content would be poor, but that the extended content would be really rich.

I confess this is inspired/stolen from Kevin Sablan’s post, and he says context is personal. I say it’s valuable, and providing an experience through information is profitable. It is technically possible and with better results than i presented,  and when you have algorithms gathering and producing readable information, it is wise to reconsider the whole news process, how information is collected, analyzed, produced and distributed, and do it in a way people can use it and be willing to pay for at the same time.

Did you clicked in all the links in this post? Why would you? And if you did, how different was your experience? Are you going back to click a few?  I know you will now.

So, what do you think?

Honeycomb: News vs UX | Notícias vs Experiência do utilizador

UX Honeycomb

I’ve been really interested in Information Architecture (IA) and how to work on  visual presentations. And accidentally i ended up looking at a post from 2004 that presented the  Experience Honeycomb, that goes beyond IA and into User Experience (UX).

And when i looked at the Honeycomb i thought this is how news contents should be planned.

How are news planned now then? Well, credibility, desirability, value, accessibility, are all  important factors, just like  actuality is (not on the honeycomb). But with blogs, Twitter and social networks news became “usable”: redistributable and recycled to create new, derived contents. And being “findable” adds value to those contents, SEO right? (and  S stands not only for the Search Engine type but also forthe Social drive).

What i’m thinking is that news are experiences, and we should shape news contents so they meet a similar model like the Honeycomb.

This is just a initial rant about it, but i think it’s worth investigating. The way journalistic contents are presented right now are not fulfilling all the potential presented by the characteristics of the online. So my proposal (not original) is to think about news as experiences.

How can we adapt the Honeycomb as a UX model to create news products? And what do you make of this?

Eu tenho andado interessado em Arquitectura da Informação (IA) e como trabalhar em representações visuais. E acidentalmente descobri um post de 2004 que mostra a Experience Honeycomb (=favo) que vai para lá da IA e para a Experiência do Utilizador (UX).

E quando olhei para o Honeycomb pensei que deveria ser assim que os conteúdos noticiosos deviam ser planeados.

Como são planeadas as noticias agora? Bem, credibilidade, necessidade, valor, acessibilidade, são todos factores importantes, assim como a actualidade (não faz parte do modelo). Mas com os blogs, Twitter e redes sociais as noticias passaram a ser “utilizáveis”, redistribuívies, e recicladas para criar conteúdos novos ou derivados. E serem “encontráveis” adiciona valor a esses conteúdos, é SEO certo? (e o S não é só de Search mas também de Social).

A minha ideia é de que as notícias são experiências, e que deveríamos moldar os conteúdos noticiosos de forma a que se enquadrem num modelo semelhante a este.

Esta é apenas uma divagação inicial, mas acho que vale a pena desenvolver. A forma como os conteúdos jornalísticos são criados agora não cumpre com todo o potencial que o online permite. Por isso a minha proposta  (não original) é olhar para as notícias como experiências.

Como podemos adaptar a Honeycomb como um modelo de UX para criar produtos informativos? E o que pensam disso?