As someone who used to mockup magazine articles with completely unrelated, trolling pullquotes back in university, I can actually see why they exist on the web – I read the full text of a lot of articles, but 90% of those, I quickly scroll through before I do so. A lot of my friends won’t even read the whole article, or will start reading from the middle and stop soon after.
Given all that though, I don’t really see why you’d stick with the text-repetition paradigm, when you could just style a sentence or paragraph in a way that calls it out, but keeps it within the flow of the text.
…unless editors assume that people will skip over a pullquote when reading, and thus might miss something important. In which case, well… you’re spending time including text that you expect people not to read…? OK…
Given some articles repeat the pull quote and some don’t, you can never know. So as a reader, they always slow me down, if they’re repeated or not. I get that they make the article more interesting and break up the reading experience, but they can also have a very negative effect. I’d say using a larger intro paragraph or images works better than pull quotes.
Pull quotes take a sentence out of it's original context and allow the writer/editor to reframe it in a slightly different way. Good pull quotes are typically sentences that are really salient and get to the heart of an article. As a reader it's pretty easy to skim by something that the writer really wanted to stand out, or felt was the idea at the heart of the article. Pull quotes are a way to emphasize those parts.
They are more than eye candy, and more than just a way to catch your eye as you flip or scroll through an article.
I agree with this. It's a stylistic choice as well, and there is certainly room for style in editorial writing.
Pull quotes are the bit the writer has told you to copy before sharing on twitter. All pull quotes should be under 140 characters.
perhaps designers should start adding a "tweet this" cta button next to all pull quotes.
To be honest, I find pull quotes pretty annoying in printed magazines too, but I can at least see the justification for them there: if you’re flipping through a magazine, they act as eye-catching inducements to stop and read (in much the same way that good photography does or illustration does).
The implication here is that people don't ‘flip through’ websites the same way, but I would argue it’s done at least as much, if not more. I also suspect they may just be eye candy inserted during design, making it look more interesting at a glance.
I think it’s because the editors are making it more appealing for people who want to skim. The pull quotes are the juicy parts highlighted, sometimes almost like click-bait within the article. But instead of encouraging you to click to open, they are encouraging you to stay around so you don’t click to close the tab.
I don't think pull quotes make sense on the web. It would be nicer if they didn't repeat text already in the article.
pull-quote - ˈpo͝olˌkwōt/ - noun US: a brief, attention-catching quotation, typically in a distinctive typeface, taken from the main text of an article and used as a subheading or graphic feature.
I think pull quotes make sense on the web. I do not mind that they repeat text already in the article.
That describes me and (well selected) pull quotes exactly. Sometimes the article is long and the time is tight, skimming those pull quotes help me got a glimpse of the 'juicy parts' in very short time. Not that it that much useful for short article though.
The New Yorker know what's up.
In a world where most web pages are text, users scan pages to meet a goal, designers leave their mark, and the (q) tag is ignored, one design pattern steps forth for freedom. One design pattern will embark on a journey that will change the world... and win the hearts of millions.
That design pattern is (blockquote).