Our Blog
Archive for the ‘Editorial Strategy’ Category
There’s a big fuss being made over the fact that Mr. Rupert Murdoch has said that his media empire will "probably remove our sites from Google’s index."
How DARE he hide his content behind the iron curtain of non-indexing?
Murdoch isn’t stupid. (Old and confused, yes. Stupid? Not so much.) He’s talking about making a seriously bold move, here, in the interest of keeping his empire from crumbling. So why are people freaking out?
It’s JUST WRONG. Right?
When the religion of the Web is that you can find anything you want, from anywhere, at any time, Murdoch’s plan is straight-up blasphemous.
With this in mind, our faithful interviewer asked, "One of the key, underlying principles of the Internet is that anyone from anywhere in the world can access information freely. Wouldn’t this change mean people have to afford it?"
Murdoch replied, "They’re already paying for newspapers. And anyone can afford a newspaper, they’re the cheapest things in the world. Electronically, it will be even cheaper."
(This cracks me up, because, of course, the majority of the world’s population either can’t afford newspapers or simply don’t have access to them … at least, newspapers that offer unbiased, quality reporting.)
Here’s what Rupert thinks you should do.
Generally, Murdoch wants you to know that his content is actually Quality Content because he employs real reporters, real writers, and real editors who offer experienced, insightful points of view. Which, of course, is true. However, this argument also implies that people shouldn’t go looking for "quality content" on search engines. No, no. You should go straight to an established publisher’s website.
Unfortunately, the internets don’t care so much about the "should"s. There’s a reason Google gets about a bajillion times more traffic than every publication website in the world … combined.
More than anything else, Murdoch is counting on his current readership’s loyalty to his brands. He admits, though, that he’s not sure what that’s going to look like in five, ten, twenty years… which means that this ends up looking more like a Hail Mary pass than anything else.
Rupert, dear, you can’t kill search.
Online readers typically know what they’re looking for, and they want the fastest way to get it. They want to be educated or entertained. They want their questions answered, their lives made easier. They have the Google or Yahoo! or MSN toolbar built into their browsers. They’re going to use it.
Murdoch doesn’t seem to get this, or care. The rest of the world, of course, does. Including you. You’ve been obsessed with SEO and page rankings for years. You don’t have the option of breaking up with Google.
However, you also shouldn’t be so obsessed with Google that you neglect to remember this all-important fact: getting your content indexed by the search engines isn’t enough to win eyeballs that matter. Just because your users can find your content doesn’t mean you’ve won your battle.
Content first. Google second.
Here’s where you can take a page from our friend Rupert and start placing significant value on content people will care about. Editorial oversight. Quality research. Quality writing. These things actually do matter. They inspire trust and motivate action.
Getting to quality content is worth your organization’s investment: time, budget, people. Because once your readers arrive from Google, they’ll either like what they see and stick around for a bit, or lunge for the back button.
Remember, people: If you have a website, you’re a publisher. If you participate in social media, you’re a publisher. If you create emails, help text, product descriptions … you’re a publisher.
You may not be selling content, but your content is selling you. Google won’t solve your problems. Of course, ignoring Google won’t, either … sorry, Rupert.
P.S.
I just have to add this little gem: In the interview, Murdoch says that public broadcasting should be of the highest quality, which commercial broadcasting can’t afford to be. Then he tells us that " most of the stuff [public broadcasting does] is stolen from the newspapers now. And we’ll be suing them for copyright. They’ll have to spend a lot more money paying a lot more reporters when they can’t steal from newspapers."
Old. Confused. Sigh.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Uncategorized, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing
Whether you’re a writer, editor or content strategist, you probably spend a lot of time thinking about how to effectively reach your audience. Maybe you pore over personas and case studies for inspiration. But there’s probably one resource you’re not considering—you! As a web user, you can be your own content expert.
Think about it. You know what an effective user experience feels like when you come across it: An instantly identifiable objective. Clean, concise copy. Benefits front-and-center. Easy navigation and clear task instructions.
Sure, style guides and success metrics are important tools for creating better content. But as a web writer and editor, I’ve learned that considering my own user experience every step of the way is one of the best strategies for success.
Here are some tips for developing your inner content expert.
Change your perception of web writing
We all hear a lot about the differences between print writing and web writing. Overall, web writing has to be more concise—scannable, task-driven, presented in bulleted lists, etc.—than print copy.
On the surface those differences seem pretty straightforward. I mean, when it comes down to it, good writing is good writing, right?
Not exactly. Web writing is a whole other animal. It needs to work in harmony with the design and information architecture to create a seamless user experience. It needs to help people DO something. And once you recognize that, you might need to change your approach to creating content.
How? By answering this one simple—but very important—question:
Is this something I’d want to read?
In other words, if I landed on this web page and read the copy, would it hold my attention? Would I get the information I need to complete my task? It may sound like common sense, but this approach can make a huge difference in the quality of your web content. Trust me.
White space is your friend
You’ve most likely visited a website filled with paragraph after paragraph of copy. And you’ve most likely zoned out, stopped reading, and maybe even left the site. I know I have.
Keep this in mind when you’re creating your content. If you can, see how it looks in a design mock-up. How dense do those paragraphs appear? Does the copy length seem intimidating and time-consuming? Would you read it if you were trying to complete a task in the midst of juggling a million other things, as your users likely are?
If not, start slashin’. Create some white space. Web users want to find what they need as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next task. They don’t want to spend a lot of time sifting through unnecessary copy to find the information they really need.
Remember, attention spans are short. Make sure your content keeps readers engaged.
Say something that matters
Concise copy alone isn’t enough. Bulleted lists don’t guarantee good web content. You still need to make sure the limited words on the page actually help users do what they came to do or learn what they came to learn. We’re talking product or service benefits, clear instructional copy, user-friendly navigation nomenclature, etc.
When you’re trying to complete a task or order a product, you want the most direct path possible to making it happen. And that path can’t be cluttered with mission statements or "why we’re great" language—unless it supports what you’re trying to do. Does this content help you make a purchase decision? Complete your task?
Great web content is about so much more than just brevity. It’s about choosing the right words (and sometimes showing rather than telling with good design) to support an effective user experience that will keep people coming back for more.
Keep this in mind when creating your own content. It’s not about the story you want to tell—it’s about what the user wants to know. Talk to them, not at them.
Now get out there and create some killer web content. You’re the expert, after all.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, User Experience, Web Writing
A few weeks ago, there was a rather heated debate (some might call it a "smackdown") between a few industry luminaries and their supporting communities. On one side, the web development/user experience community. On the other, the SEO community.
This battle has been fought more than once before. Is it possible for well-built, awesome websites and products to be findable simply by being built "right"? Are web developers behind the curve when it comes to the latest, most effective SEO techniques? Is either practice absolutely necessary for online success? Are they both?
There were some great discussion points that arose in this most recent debate. Let’s review.
"Good SEO techniques are just good web development techniques."
First, there appeared an inspired rant by the inimitable Derek Powazek on the evils of the search engine optimization (SEO) consulting industry. Derek’s ire was fueled largely by his recent experiences working with publishing organizations that are sinking millions of dollars into SEO initiatives while laying off writers left and right. His argument:
Good SEO techniques are just good web development techniques. They should be obvious to anyone who makes websites for a living. If they’re not obvious to you, and you make websites, you need to get informed. If you’re a client, make sure you hire an informed web developer.
Derek received a lot of feedback on his post and responded with a post called SEO FAQ, which is also an interesting read.
"SEO is a legitimate form of marketing."
The post was pretty heated, and it spread (accordingly) like wildfire. It wasn’t long before the post reached Danny Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief of SearchEngineLand.com and one of the SEO community’s most revered leaders. Danny posted a response to Derek’s first post, and then again to Derek’s "SEO FAQ" post. In Danny’s second post, he said:
Web development is not SEO. Good web developers will understand the fundamentals of SEO, in terms of good site architecture, crawlability and so on. But… few of them are dialed into how to handle giving Google and others a shopping feed. Or a feed of real estate listings. Or the completely separate ranking aspects that impact YouTube (the world’s second most popular search engine). Are they putting out a full-feed that Google Blog Search prefers? Are they checking that the URL shortener you use on Twitter spits back a 301 rather than a 302 redirect, or worse, frames stuff up via a 200 code?
Who has the secret sauce?
So. Whose advice is key for businesses truly succeeding online?
Fundamentally, Derek believes that the best way to drive traffic to your website or product is this: "Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again." His position is difficult to argue with. But, it’s also based on several faulty assumptions, not the least of which is that everyone who "makes something great" has the right people’s attention, online and off. And, frankly, most of us who want to promote our products or services really don’t.
From Danny’s point of view, helping individuals and organizations raise the visibility of their websites is instrumental to online success. Important, yes. Instrumental? Not so sure. What’s prioritized by SEO professionals is getting as many eyeballs as possible on the page. And yet, if what you’ve made isn’t great, you’re going to lose attention and possible conversions, fast.
Ultimately, Danny and Derek talked. Common ground (of sorts) was reached. Derek posted a very classy, very informed apology to "the people out there doing good work for real clients under the auspices of SEO." Danny published Thoughts on Web Developers, SEO, and Reputation Problems. The storm quieted. And we all went back to our work.
Alignment: A girl can dare to dream
I’m a content strategist, which means I care deeply about the expertise and insights on both sides of the table. I want websites to be awesome. And I want the right audiences to find out about them, so those users can accomplish what they need to, and be happy.
Really, that’s what I want. For people to have happy online experiences.
You know, here’s how I see it. For the web development community to tell us that "if you build it and it’s awesome, they will come" is simply naïve, bordering on irresponsible. However, for SEO professionals to promote SEO as one of the primary tactics for online success is equally misleading.
There’s some fairly obvious common ground, here, that’s getting overlooked. And that’s creating and maintaining awesome content that’s optimized for the right people to find it at the right time in the right places.
In my experience, both the web development and SEO communities have largely marginalized the importance of delivering relevant, quality content that’s focused on meeting clear business objectives and user needs. Or, they’ll pay passionate lip service to it, then go back to preaching and promoting their areas of expertise.
And so the content, as it often is, becomes someone else’s problem. Which ultimately becomes the end user’s problem. Which then results in a really crappy ROI for all those web design/development/SEO dollars you just spent.
One of the key components of any business’s online success is to start by deeply considering the content itself. Before you worry about building the damn thing, let alone promoting it, figure out why you’re publishing content, who it’s for, what it’s going to say, how it’s going to sound, and what happens to it once it’s "out there."
In other words … figure out your content strategy. Or, if you’re a web developer/designer or SEO wonk, ask for it. Because it should be informing what you are (or aren’t) doing.
Postscript: Get yourself edumacated
There were a lot of hopped-up, dueling posts and tweets that came out of both communities during the few days of battle. But there were a few added to the conversation in really valuable ways, and I encourage you to read them:
Additionally, I highly recommend the following resources to, well, pretty much anyone that deals with web content:
Onward, content comrades. Now, let’s hug it out.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy
I love this sign.
I pass by it every day on my way to work. It’s hard to tell from the picture, but this sign is huge. I’d guess it’s six or seven feet tall.
I love it because it communicates information that’s useful to me (store name and hours) in a manner that is conscious of how I will be reading the information (quickly, from a bus, bike, or car).
Everything works together. It has both good information and an easy- to-read design. It’s a good reminder to not forget the how and when, in addition to the what, when looking at content for your site.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, User Experience, Web Writing
At lunch the other day a friend asked me, "Where can I find somebody smart, but really cheap, to be my ghost-tweeter?" A guy next to her obviously thought she was loony. Not me; I’m used to it.
Twitter-as-content-commodity was a new twist, but her conundrum was very familiar. What she was really saying was, "I know I need smart content, but I don’t want to pay for it." On a grander scale, many organizations have the same attitude.
Most people understand that content has value. Big value. They just can’t prove or measure the ROI. And, therefore, they have no concept of how much content is worth.
Proving and measuring the value of content is complex. But, as content professionals, we have to do it. I have some ideas about how to do it, but before I even go there, let’s talk about why everybody is so confused in the first place.
Brace yourselves, content folks. We’re going to talk economics. I promise there will be no math involved.
1776: Defining product value, Adam Smith style
I’m no expert in economics, but I know this much: Adam Smith was a smart dude. Back in 1776, he wrote The Wealth of Nations, a book that basically defined economics as we know it. His ideas still influence the way we assign value to things today.
For the market economy to work, Smith said products of value have three characteristics:
-
Excludability: The seller can "exclude" you from owning or using the product unless you pay for it; the product is difficult to replicate so you have to buy it from the seller.
-
Rivalry: It’s more expensive for two people to use the product then one person (So, I can buy a pair of shoes for $10, but if we both want to have shoes it’ll be $20).
-
Transparency: Customers can see exactly what they’ll get before they buy the product.
These rules work pretty darn well for things like apples, shoes, or kazoos. Those are the kind of tangible products people bought in 1776. (Well, kazoos weren’t invented yet, but apples and shoes surely were.)
1956: A funny thing happened on the way to the factory
Smith’s theories worked pretty well for 180 years, but in 1956 something happened that would have surprised Adam – in the U.S. the number of white-collar jobs surpassed blue-collar jobs.
So, instead of people working in factories and farms making tangible products, people were sitting behind desks making … information. Accountants creating reports, lawyers creating legislation, advertisers creating TV spots, etc., etc. In 1956, content/information was red hot. The first computers were up and running (Check out the photo below of a home computer in 1956 for proof). Heck, Marilyn Monroe even married Arthur Miller, a playwright (you may have heard of him).
The industrial age was over. The information age had begun. Information was in demand in a way it had never been before — and Smith’s three pillars of economic value had started to blur.
1990s: Content breaks all the rules
Until the 1990s, Adam Smith three pillars seemed to be adequate, if not perfect, even for content. Before then, if you wanted some information, you bought a book or newspaper (tangible items). Sure, you could lend your book to a friend, who would get the content for free, but content creators were largely paid for their work.
But, with the advent of the internet, the pillars of value for content collapsed.
-
Excludability: Content is now easy to create, use, and replicate.
-
Rivalry: When content is posted online – even if you make me pay for access – I can easily share it with millions of friends without paying a cent.
-
Transparency: Once you’ve looked at content in-depth, you really don’t need to buy it, do you?
Simultaneously the business importance of good content went sky-high AND the value of content tanked (according to Adam Smith). On top of it all, the internet movement suggested that all content should be free. And society agreed.
2009: Classical economics is toast
So, let’s recap. Today, content is one of the most important business assets in the world. AND, according to traditional economics, content has little value. AND people expect to get it for free (see newspaper industry stats). AND we’re experiencing the worst recession in 80 years.
The economic system is just plain out of date.
I wish I could tell you about the economic model of the future. (Not only would that be nice for you, but I’d make zillions.) Lots of brilliant economists have been trying to figure it out for years.
No wonder people are confused about what to pay for content strategy and creation.
COMING SOON: The Value of Content, Part 2 (The Sequel)
Here’s what I do know. Content makes money. Content saves money. And, ROI of content can be measured. That’s what my next blog post will be about in a few weeks. (It’s just like when the Brady Bunch went to Hawaii – two whole episodes of non-stop fun! Just. Like. That.)
Until then if you have any great examples or ideas about content ROI, send them my way (melissa.rach@braintraffic.com). I’d love to hear about them, and I’ll include them in the blog when I can.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, Web Content, Web Writing
Hiya. I figured that since the book has been finished for, oh, two months now, that I didn’t really have an excuse not to start blogging again.
Anyhow.
So, earlier this week there was a little Twitter exchange that began in response to j. boye’s post, Who Should Be on Your CMS Shortlist? (Because j. boye is a "vendor neutral" consultation firm, its findings are very well-respected throughout the EU and beyond.)
Initially, there was a flurry of responses from people who thought one CMS or another really sucked. I also had people asking me which CMS I would recommend, which was kind of weird, as I obviously have no idea about their organization’s content management needs.
But here’s my point. While the CMS Shortlist is useful in many ways, it’s certainly not the best place to start when trying to solve your content problems. No matter what your CMS vendor tells you.
I’m a big fan of iSite’s The CMS Myth (and wish they would post more often!), whose central tenet is this: In reality, CMS success hinges on your plan, your people, and your process behind your web content management initiative.
That’s content strategy, folks. No matter what CMS vendors promise, no matter how "powerful" a CMS is, a CMS is not going to help make your content more useful, usable, or relevant to your end users. Moreover, a CMS isn’t going to solve anything for anyone in your organization who struggles with the day-to-day realities of content creation, delivery, and governance.
Don’t try selecting a tool until you really understand what you’re trying to build, and for whom. Start with your content strategy.
Here are two related posts by j. boye analyst Dorthe Raakjær Jespersen, well worth reading:
> Why IT Should Not Run a CMS Project
> Why IT Should Run a CMS Project
One last thing: I’m really excited to be a part of the j. boye Conference in Aarhus, Denmark, November 3-5. Tagline: "A knowledge sharing summit for online professionals." Bring it.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Uncategorized, Web Content
Many of our first-time clients come to us in the eleventh hour of a site redesign, looking for web writing triage. They unload sitemaps, wireframes, and piles of source content (we’re talking PDFs, outdated web pages, print collateral, email copy—the works). It’s our job to turn this ugly mess into a beautiful, content-rich website.
Sound familiar? If you’re a web writer, it’s likely you’ve run into this scenario more often than not. And if you’re going to meet your deadlines, there’s not a lot of time to get to know your source material.
No problem. Just take what we like to call the “speed-dating approach.” In doing so, you’ll be able to quickly weed out the duds (aka nice-to-know, “filler” information) and find the studs (meaty content that addresses your users’ needs).
This approach may not be the most romantic beginning to your “happily web-er after,” but it’s efficient.
Get ready to meet your source content!
Before you start making eyes at all this material, you’ll want to do a little pre-date grooming. Let’s assume your client has prepped the source content for you–made it presentable by organizing and prioritizing it into usable content strategy documents.
Post these content strategy documents nearby for quick reference:
Got all that handy? Good. Like wearing your favorite little black dress to a singles mixer, these documents are the trusted staples of your web writing strategy.
Now you’re ready to speed date your source content. Here’s how, in four easy steps.
STEP ONE: Scan-read source content and highlight the most important points.
There’s no need to spend countless hours reading over every page of your source content. In fact, the longer you linger over it, the more likely you’ll become immune to all its flaws.
Instead, follow the tried-and-true speed-dating guidelines. In other words, spend just a few minutes per page, scanning for important information and recurring themes. When you see a key point, highlight it. Repeat.
Not sure which information to look for? Refer to your content strategy documents. They’ll tip you off to what’s important and what’s not.
STEP TWO: Copy and paste highlighted messages into your content document.
Meaningful relationships don’t develop on first sight. And awesome web copy doesn’t auto-magically appear after a single review of your source content. So don’t rush your writing process. Matter of fact, don’t even write right away. It’s tempting, but trust us on this.
Start off by simply copying and pasting your highlighted content into the appropriate pages of your content document. Go ahead and organize the source content into an outline that fits the page’s content needs. But hold off on the actual writing until you’ve transferred all of your highlighted source content.
STEP THREE: Write, edit and refine your key content.
Just like you wouldn’t lay it all out there on a first date, don’t try to perfect your copy in your first draft. Do keep web writing best practices and style guides in mind as you write. Just don’t kill yourself with the details on the first go-round.
So, go ahead. Write that first draft. Just do it. But don’t edit while you write. Now set your draft aside. Sleep on it. Refer back to your web writing best practices and style guidelines. Then you can edit and refine until you’ve created killer web content.
STEP FOUR: Deliver irresistible web copy to your client.
Before you commit to your content document, have an editor take a look at it. He or she will be the strategic equivalent of the therapist you hire to smooth out all your relationship issues before saying “I do.”
After a few rounds like this with your editor-therapist, your web copy should be suitable to introduce to your mother. Er, client.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Web Writing
When used correctly, your style guide can be a helpful tool. When used incorrectly, it can cause confusion and suck up time.
Don’t let your style guide derail your sane train! Bone up on these tried-and-true tips:
1. Don’t put it off. Always have your style guide set before you start writing. A style guide will help you establish, guide and rein in all stakeholder expectations over the course of the project.
Whatever you do, don’t fool yourself into believing you can write now and create your style guide later. You probably won’t. And if you do, rest assured, it’ll be a painful and messy process.
Tip: If you already have a style guide, give it a good once-over. What should change, if anything? What should remain the same? If you’ve found yourself ignoring major sections of the style guide in the past, consider updating it. A tight, clean style guide is a happy style guide!
2. Make sure you “get it” get it. Don’t make assumptions about your style guide. If anything seems wonky, illogical, or even just “off,” clarify it. That goes double if other people are going to be using it, too.
Tip: Everything’s relative. Words especially. Nail down slippery terms by defining what each one means to you. If you’re going for a “conversational” tone, put together a comparison chart:
Conversational is …
More Like
|
Less Like |
| For reals. |
In all seriousness. |
| It’s off the hook. |
It’s extraordinary. |
| Cool it. |
Patience is a virtue. |
| Give a shout. |
Contact customer service. |
3. Bob for phrases. Okay, so, you’ve nailed down the definition of conversational. Great. Now, go a step further. Hunt down real-world examples of conversational copy. Websites, blogs, Twitter feeds—they’re all easily accessible content mines. When you see a turn of phrase you like, copy and paste that baby into a spreadsheet.
In a nutshell, build out the left-hand column of the diagram above.
| Word Bank |
| For reals |
| It’s off the hook. |
| Cool it. |
| Give a shout. |
| Raise the roof. |
| Don’t sweat the small stuff. |
| Sandwich is "wow" spelled incorrectly. |
Tip: The word bank is supposed to serve as inspiration. You should not copy phrases verbatim from your word bank into your content. In other words, don’t plagiarize.
4. Check in. After you’ve revised your style guide, run through it again. Make sure you’re on board before proceeding. This might seem tedious. And time-consuming. That’s because it is. But, it’s the only, only, only way to stay on point.
Tip: When revising a style guide (especially if you’re not the person who created it) give justifications for your changes. This can be a short intro paragraph, or comments in the word document. Or, it could simply be verbal. Whatever you do, though, justify.
5. Honor and obey your style guide. Inevitably, maybe after a few happy years with your style guide, you will see another one. It will appear fancy and wonderful. And you will think, “Hey, no fair! I want a fancy and wonderful style guide.”
You will be tempted to stray. DON’T. Stay the course. Ditching your style guide mid-project, or—dread of all dreads!—near the end of a project, will only lead to heartbreak.
Tip: If you’re working on an ongoing project, and you’re not happy with the style guide, consider revising your style guide for the next major content rollout.
Tags: Add new tag
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Uncategorized, Web Writing
When I found out that my dog Sam might have a brain tumor, I went straight to my computer to learn everything I could. A Google search led me to a pet website with articles ranging from light-hearted topics, such as pet costumes, to serious subjects, such as health conditions.
The article on canine brain tumors was very informative and left me feeling a little sad, but hopeful. And then, I reached the last line. It read: "I hope you found this article enjoyable."
My mouth dropped and I said out loud to no one, "What? Are you serious? No, I did not enjoy this article, you oompa loompa. My dog might be dying."
I knew, because I understand some things about content management systems and re-usable page templates, that this line appears at the end of every article on the site.
Aside from it being completely inappropriate for the topic at hand – especially when the reader is likely a pet parent on an emotional roller coaster – it’s just not good practice. What’s the benefit to the user in this little pat-yourself-on-the-back, lazy approach to ending the article? Give me something I can use – what’s my next step, where can I get more information?
If you absolutely must use static content on a page template that will be re-used, make absolutely sure it fits for every possible content type or topic, or risk losing your credibility and your users. Better yet, think carefully about whether it serves the users’ needs in the first place.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Web Writing
Like many information architects, I come from a design background. That’s why I am very familiar with the tasks and process involved with design. While I have always worked closely with writers throughout my career, I have never been a writer myself.
I know that in past lives I have made a terrible assumption. Working at Brain Traffic I have seen daily proof that I am not the only person to make this mistake. And while I have seen the light, this assumption still runs rampant thorough the industry. I’m here to set the record straight.
Here it is … ready?
It’s the information architect’s job to find the source content.
Many information architects and designers try to draw a parallel between writing and design. Finding and selecting the colors, fonts, images, etc., is an engaging and exciting part of creating a great visual design. Searching for or creating the source imagery is why many designers get up everyday and go to work.
Conflicts often arise between information architects and designers when the interface is involved. It’s understandable, then, that the IA might assume that writers don’t want the IA to have anything to do with choosing the source content they’ll use to write a website. Wrong.
The writer loves it when an IA points out the relevant source content so he or she can read it, decipher it, and consolidate it into a clear and useful message. They want to focus on the tone and voice of the content. They want to turn nonsense into plain language, often on a tight timeline.
With all respect to the design process, locating source content for every single page of a site is much more time-intensive than finding source assets for representational pages of visual comps. And, digging into the source content is something that should never be skipped when you’re creating the architecture for a new site. From my experience, it’s the only way to plan for a great site that has meaningful content on all of its pages.
So, make sure you know what source content will be used for every page on your site and document it for your writer. Your writer will thank you for it. Trust me.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, Web Writing
