On the plus side, I have been led to some great web sites and articles. That has been very good, but I am not sure that outweighs the negatives. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Some people seem compelled to tweet their every thought — and most of these people appear to have salient thoughts in their heads that would sound, if they were made physical, like two BBs rolling around in an empty tuna fish can. They suffer from a mind-numbing twitterhea. I don’t need to know you are bored tonight or read the drunken conversation you overheard in a bar.

2. Other people seem to do the above and then re-tweet what I already get from the original twitterer, probably in an attempt to push as many tweets as possible. Didn’t we follow one another because of similar interests in the first place? There is no need to re-tweet to fellow travelers.

3. Some tweets are simply empty and obvious marketing moves, sort of tweeted junk mail. I don’t mind links to relevant blog links (I’ve even done that once or twice.), but don’t keep trying to sell me on links to marginal copy.

4. Many tweets are just fluff, simplistic ideas that are the written equivalent of  like, uh and um in spoken language: they take up space unnecessarily. A well-known designer took the time to let everyone know that content is more important than design and design should support the content. Well, duh. Share your genius not platitudes.

5. Finally and this is rather like No. 4, some real experts in a field seem to think that we want reports on their daily life instead of insights and thoughts along the lines of their professional expertise. As an example, I follow the Getting Things Done guru, David Allen. I had hoped for some good daily tips. Instead I have found out about wine, gardening and the weather in Ojai, Calif. Interesting, but not what I hoped for. I’ll stay a follower, however, because the occasional gem is in there.

I have been guilty of a few of these, in part because I felt the need to say something once or twice a day, but no more. Tomorrow I cull my “following” herd and will tweet only what I think is truly important, even if I am silent for awhile.

I am sure the Twitterati will be saddened….

At the same time, we see that the Orlando Sentinel has gone through a major redesign. This is even after research has shown that redesigns don’t do much to stanch the losses in circulation.

Nonetheless, design remains an important, maybe even critical, component of a successful newspaper. This is not because it is important to “look good,” but because of what computer interface designers refer to as the “user experience.” I also like to toss in “branding” as well.

Several years back, Peter Morville listed seven aspects that comprise the user’s experience with your web site www.semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php). You would be well served to pay attention to each as you create the design and content of your print product and your web site.

Valuable: This should be obvious, but often isn’t. Are you providing content that is valuable to your customers, or are you providing content YOU think they ought/need to know? Your customers will pay for value.

Useful: This is tied to value, which is more of an “idea” issue. Being useful means that you are providing content and design that your customers can actually use to improve their lives quickly and easily.

Usable: Do the navigation bars make sense and do the buttons on your web site appear in the proper order or do you make your web visitors think? (Don’t ever make your readers think about navigation!) This is where good, user-centered design comes in.

Desirable: This where the look and feel of your products elicit positive emotional reactions in your customers. Again, this involves creating good designs. Apple understands this very well.

Findable: Can your readers find their way easily through your content, whether in print or pixels? Do you anchor recurring features in the print product?

Accessible: Are your news products accessible to all?

Credible: Do your presentation of news and information inspire credibility? This can even be affected by design, which is not just a cosmetic add-on. The design and organization of your news products can say a lot about your “brand” of credibility, if done professionally and thoughtfully. This is why I think redesigns done largely with cosmetic goals in mind are the ones most likely not to succeed.

If you are paying attention to these components of how your readers experience your news products, then you are probably doing well.

All this ties into the “branding” and marketing of your paper and its web site. Wouldn’t it be nice if, when people in your area are asked to think of words that describe your paper, their list reads like Morville’s?