Our Blog
Archive for the ‘Editorial Strategy’ Category
The simplest sentences and websites take the most thought. Ruthlessly revising and deleting is the hallmark of great writing — and how you keep readers on your site. Jakob Nielsen reports that readers read at most only 20 to 28 percent of the contents on a web page. Many stay for less than FOUR SECONDS.
To reiterate: You have FOUR SECONDS OR LESS to show a user that you have the information that he or she is looking for. Anything that’s not entirely relevant or usable has got to go. Or your user’s gonna leave your site.
Knowing that, here’s some advice from the pros that I rely upon when I’m getting too wordy:
“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.”
Ernest Hemingway
“Words, like glass, obscure when they do not aid vision.”
Joseph Joubert
My favorite book on writing is On Writing Well, by William Zinsser. The lessons are incredibly relevant, even if the bulk of the book was written before the dawn of the internet. There are a million golden rules on every page, but it’s not overwhelming. I’ve highlighted nearly everything in the book.
Here’s what’s most relevant in terms of the work we do every day:
“Clutter is the official language used by corporations . . .
Beware, then, of the long word that’s no better than the short word:
• assistance (help)
• numerous (many)
• facilitate (ease)
• individual (man or woman)
• remainder (rest)
• initial (first)
• implement (do)
• sufficient (enough)
• attempt (try)
• referred to as (called)
• and hundreds more
Beware of slippery new fad words: paradigm and parameter, prioritize and potentialize. They are all weeds that smother what you write. Don’t dialogue with someone you can talk to. Don’t interface with anybody.”
Posted in Editorial Strategy, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing
Now that the social media tools that define Web 2.0 have moved into the mainstream—and believe me, it’s mainstream now that our moms are on Facebook—the interactive community has moved on to the next big thing: Web 3.0.
Recently I’ve seen an increase in tweets and blogs about the topic. After trying to follow the conversation, I had to admit to myself I didn’t really know what “web 3.0” meant. So I decided to see what the buzz was all about.
Here’s your crash course in Web 3.0, in case you were wondering, too.
What is Web 3.0?
The first thing you should know is that the definition of Web 3.0 is still a little murky.
Here’s what some people are saying about it:
-
"Web 3.0 is about making the web a more personal web. [It’s] an internet that can anticipate my needs, understand my meaning and even allow me to find information better than ever. " Judy Shapiro, Ad Age
-
" The core idea behind Web 3.0 is to extract much more meaningful, actionable insight from information. The goal of Web 3.0 is to reorganize information so users can capture what things are and how they are related." Web 3.0 Conference site
-
"… Web 3.0 is about open and more structured data – which essentially makes the Web more ‘intelligent’. The smarter the data, the more things we can do with it. The current trends we’re seeing today – filtering content, real-time data, personalization – are evidence that ‘Web 3.0′ is upon us, if not yet well defined." Richard MacManus, Read Write Web
Web 3.0 is also sometimes called the semantic web. But sometimes the semantic web is referred to as a component of Web 3.0. Like I said: murky.
Why could Web 3.0 be awesome?
According to the various definitions out there, we’re on the verge of the BEST INTERWEBS EVER. In a nutshell, it sounds like Web 3.0 aims to be a customized information delivery system that intuitively caters to your every want and need—wherever you are.
Yes, this includes more and better mobile apps. And not just for the iPhone. (Please? Thank you.)
According to the Web 3.0 Conference people, the benefits of Web 3.0 are totally rad:
-
This seemingly simple concept will have a profound effect at every level of information consumption, from the individual end user to the enterprise.
-
Web 3.0 technologies make the organization of information radically more fluid and allow for new types of analysis based on things like text semantics, machine learning, and what we call serendipity — the stumbling upon insights based on just having better organized and connected information.
Why might Web 3.0 Suck?
Besides the inherent fear that a “smart” web is the first step to a Terminator-style robot revolution, some valid concerns have been raised about Web 3.0.
Recently, Advertising Age’s Judy Shapiro wrote a blog to express her concerns. Her post “In Web 3.0 We Trust – or Not” explores the need to integrate the human element of trust into the forthcoming “intelligent” web.
She writes that Web 3.0 risks disaster:
"… because as our dependence on the internet grows, a lack of trust will unravel any or all of the marvelous innovations being conceived now.
What good is more linked data when we have no idea which data to trust? Wouldn’t you rather get a product recommendation from a trusted friend than a "paid" digital butler, ah, I mean agent?"
Besides wondering whether we can trust the content Web 3.0 serves up, we’ll also struggle with issues of privacy. In order to make the data more customized, Web 3.0 gadgets will need to gather more of our personal information. Which begs the questions:
Will we like Web 3.0?
I think that depends, on many factors. And of course it will be heavily influenced by personal choice.
Factors to consider:
-
Will the technology deliver what it promises? Gadgets are cool, but only if they work.
-
How will the technology change our lives, in a tangible way? It has to be intuitive and easy-to-use to improve our everyday lives.
-
Can we overcome the feelings of mistrust brought on by an “intelligent” web? We have to be able to trust the content it serves up—and trust that our private information is protected.
-
How does Web 3.0’s focus on technology affect the need for publishing useful, useable content? This last factor is the most important, in my opinion.
Here’s what Rachel Lovinger, Content Strategy Lead at Razorfish, has to say about the influence of Web 3.0 on content:
“The promise is that [Web 3.0 is] going to help make content more readily accessible. So, the call-to-arms for content strategy is a big one. Like my tweet quoting Tom Tague [from his keynote at the Semantic Technology Conference on June 16], there’s a lot of content, not enough information.
Web 3.0 is going to help the good stuff rise to the top, but in order for that to happen, there has to be good stuff.”
Exactly. We need to continue planning for content the same way we’ve always needed to—but with more urgency. But don’t worry. Brain Traffic can help. Just give us a call. (The telephone may be so Web 0.0, but it’ll still work in Web 3.0. Promise.)
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, Resources, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing
I have always liked the idea of medieval mapmakers using the phrase "Here Be Dragons" to denote unexplored or dangerous territories. Sticking a fire-breathing reptile in documentation when you run out of facts? That’s panache.
Unexplored and dangerous territories, indeed
These days, people aren’t so stylish. When an information architect (or user experience designer) doesn’t have the time (or the talent) to document content requirements, they stick a "page stack" on their site map. It looks like this:
Don’ t get me wrong: I’m cool with the stack if there is accompanying documentation that provides content details. But when an information architect uses the stack in place of content requirements, they are leaving the client in unexplored and dangerous territories (without even a dragon to warn them).
A little dragon goes a long way
So, I have an idea. If you’re a web professional doing information architecture and you’re not documenting content requirements, stick a dragon on your site map instead of a page stack. This will be a nice heads up for your client and particularly fun for those of you who used to be designers.
If you’re a client and you see a dragon on your site map, consider why your information architect is not worried about the information. Then, call Brain Traffic.
P.S.: Unfortunately, that here-be-dragons bit is mostly a myth. Only one medieval artifact, the Lenox Globe (ca. 1510), actually has the phrase "here be dragons" on it. Well, technically, there’s also the Borgia map (ca. 1430), but it doesn’t really say "here be dragons." It says (over a dragon-like figure), "Here are men who have large horns of the length of four feet, and there are even serpents so large, that they could eat an ox whole." Put that on your site map.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture
As content strategists and web writers, we frequently face off with the dreaded Welcome copy in project requirements. It seems lots of folks still have difficulty parting ways with this dubious convention.
You know The Welcome. It looks a little something like this:
We get it, we do. It’s important to be friendly and engaging. But here’s a bit about why we consistently recommend against this tactic.
What’s wrong with The Welcome? It’s a waste of your valuable real estate.
The words in this box state the obvious. (And not very compellingly, but that’s not the issue.) Nor do they directly help a user accomplish what she came to do. For example, they don’t actually allow her to print a document. Or help her “take advantage of products”—or whatever. They’re just in the way.
Ironically, The Welcome isn’t even particularly welcoming. It’s kind of awkward, inauthentic, overly formal, and sales-y. It reminds us of the host who overenthusiastically greets you at a party, then proceeds to talk about himself the entire time before abandoning his beleaguered listener go find her own glass of punch.
Gerry McGovern has no love for The Welcome. (And how.)
For some real vitriol on The Welcome, look no further than Gerry McGovern:
“There is nothing worse on the Web than welcoming people, and telling them about how you’re so delighted to announce the launch of, or about how on your website they will be able to find, or about how it’s now even easier, or about how you’re introducing, launching, or already in an orbit of hot air.”
Yowza.
Welcome is a state of mind—not a statement.
So what’s a poor website to do? You still need to make your user feel welcome.
Fear not. You can. If you follow one simple rule: Show—don’t tell.
You’ll notice that nobody’s welcoming anybody here, per se. Rather, the idea permeates every word and image on the page. And I defy anyone to tell me what could be more welcoming than a site that:
-
Promises to be the best way of managing my money—for free (They can help me)
-
Organizes its navigation to mirror the way I naturally approach information (They understand me)
-
Presents high-level benefits (They help me decide whether their service is worth my precious time)
-
Offers a fresh, inspiring take on managing finances (They’re approachable and friendly—and different)
-
Has won the attention of some important people (They know I’m a comparison shopper)
-
Features a bright orange “Get started” button (They clearly show me what I should do next)
Back at the party, Mint.com is the equivalent of the gracious host who waves at you from across the room. He doesn’t waste time telling you how totally welcome you are, or what all you’ll find when you walk through the door. He just smiles warmly, hands you a piece of cake, and asks if you have everything you need.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Web Content, Web Writing
Thinking back to my middle school years, if given the choice to hang out with someone who looked cool — and was always saying things like, “Dude, I am so awesome. Look at how awesome I am,” I would have been all, “Ugh.”
However, if given the chance to hang out with someone who just was cool –- how they looked and acted, what they said –- I would have been all “Ohmigod, let’s totally hang out!”
(Okay, this never happened to me, but that’s beside the point.)
This concept still applies … especially to the “About Us” section of a website. No matter how beautifully designed, if a site’s voice doesn’t ring true, it’s easy to spot an “ugh.”
Rather than using this section of a site like a congratulatory press release, consider approaching “About Us” like a magazine’s Editor Letter.
Following this logic, “About Us” should:
-
Match the tone and voice of the entire website, while addressing Who / What / Why.
-
Give a good indication of what to expect on the rest of the site.
-
In my middle school scenario – just be cool.
This Editor’s Note from Travel + Leisure really captures this concept:
We call ourselves travel missionaries at this magazine.
The mission is to get our readers out to experience the world, with all its eye-opening, mind-expanding, and life-enhancing possibilities. But at this moment it’s hard to focus on destinations and trip-planning strategies without addressing the economic problems that travel is facing …
Showcasing travel at home and abroad is what we do in the pages of Travel + Leisure, with stories about alluring destinations from Alaska to the Basque Country of France, to name just two in this issue. Our focus remains on providing T+L readers with the inspiration and information they need to achieve their dreams and aspirations.
Although this excerpt appeared in the print version of the magazine, with some slight modifications, this could easily populate an “About Us” section online. It’s current, specific, descriptive and accurately captures the spirit of the publication.
A bit of advice? Don’t announce your awesomeness in “About Us” and expect to be cool forever. Even if your site doesn’t overhaul content as frequently as a magazine — consider frequently updating “About Us” to accurately match your evolving online presence.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, Web Content, Web Writing
I saw this sign during a recent trip to Midtown Global Market.
I liked it for the following reasons:
- It clearly communicated that there was still a play area but it had been moved.
- It helped me understand where I was in the market (northeast) and where I would need to go (southwest).
- The graphic gave me additional information (rather than acting as unnecessary decoration) and reinforced which direction I should go to find the play area.
- The design isn’t any fancier than it needs to be. It’s clear, simple, and readable from a distance.
There are only two improvements I could offer:
- Use sentence case to improve the readability.
- Change relocated to moved. Same message, only simpler.
Nice job, Midtown.
Posted in Editorial Strategy, User Experience, Web Writing
I've been getting a lot of messages in my mailbox lately from CEOs and the like trying to reassure me about the state of their business. No, your money didn't go towards that $30,000 antique rug in my office. I swear.
A great example of this phenomenon is a recent TV campaign with Sprint CEO Dan Hesse. In it, he strolls through Central Park in a luxe overcoat pitching a new product, all while empathizing about the "trying times" we're in. Bill Clinton feeling my pain this isn't.
Occasionally, we get asked at Brain Traffic to make space for this kind of thing as part of a larger content development project.
It seems like a lame holdover of a (much) older style of advertising . . . say from the 1950s. I guess I just can't get my Gen X brain around the idea that an appeal from authority is an effective way to retain a customer, let alone a good means to convert a sales prospect.
It's as if they think a few platitudes and a reassuring word from the Person in Charge can fix a deeper issue.
Well maybe it can, and maybe it can't. But I'm skeptical that putting executive marketing messages on your website is an effective way to soothe a nervous customer.
The customer is on your site to accomplish a task. Maybe they want to learn more about a product, or service an existing product. A leadership message doesn’t help accomplish that task.
The best way to convince a customer that your company is still trustworthy is to prove it with action. Continue to provide value. Make the customer service process easy. Make it clear why you’re offering something your competitors aren’t.
As hard as it is for an old editor to say, there are times when content alone can't fix the problem.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, User Experience, Web Writing
Like a lot of people, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about my finances lately.
There are a lot of things that I either don’t like, or don’t understand, about money. And trying to get real information that makes sense to me . . . well, it’s hard to find.
Last fall, I decided it was time to open up an internet savings account. I looked at a couple of options. At the time, the rates were quite attractive.
I chose ING Direct. They didn’t have the highest rate.
So why did I pick them?
Simple: They spoke my language.
Their motto is simply, “Save your money.” That’s it. I get that. And whether I like to save or not, ING makes the process clear. The basic functions, transactions and transfers, leave no room for interpretation, either.
Even the privacy policy and the terms and conditions, notoriously ugly gluts of legalese on most sites, make sense. Here is an example:
These people clearly understand that saving or investing money is intimidating. Their tone is reassuring and conversational. So right away I feel secure about leaving my money with them. Why? They skip that highfalutin’ financial talk and stick to basics. I feel like I’m in control. (Empowering your users is always a good thing.)
For example, their "Declaration of Financial Independence" explains what being a saver really means. After some basic saving rules, they move to more emotional and global issues around saving money (and even a plug for the ol’ adage, money doesn’t buy happiness). It makes me think, "You GET me, ING!" And it sheds some light. Saving money is less about not getting new shoes, and more about making a better world. I hadn’t thought about that before.
ING also sends periodic e-newsletters chock full of information chunked out into bite-size bulleted lists and easy-to-navigate chunks of copy. They use bullet points, lists, and lots of headings to keep information organized. They touch on the emotional side of saving and investing, but don’t dwell on it. And the newsletter is task-focused so it gives me something to do with myself (besides freak out, I mean).
If a well-written website can inspire this chronic spender to save, anything is possible. I love that ING makes money management simple. Now the only question is . . . can I live without these new shoes? (ING would tell me, straightforwardly: Stick that cash in your savings account, Missy!)
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, User Experience, Web Writing
Welcome to this week’s edition of links we like. Let’s get right to it, shall we?
In Defense of Readers
YES! Users want content, which means the design of readability is very important. This post on A List Apart takes a careful, insightful look at how users read.
Make your Firefox work for you
We could all use some shortcuts, no?
Mind-mapping content strategy
It’s the first we’ve seen.
SEO and survival
We’d like to add that you also need a good content strategy.
How One Little Letter Can Sabotage Your Meaning
Editing still matters—spelling and grammar go a long way in helping readers understand your content. Even in the age of spell check, you must choose your words, and use your words, carefully.
Social media secrets
This ClickZ blog post, combined with a great MIMA event today by Jeff Rohrs from ExactTarget, are good reminders that you aren’t in control when it comes to social media. And that’s a good thing. It means people are interacting with your content. And, well, isn’t that the point?
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Style Guides and Such, User Experience, Web Writing
You may remember Kristina's post about style guides. Style guides make writers happy because they can follow the rules the first time, and they make businesses happy because the writers are speaking the language. And hammering out style details at the beginning saves needless time and expense to clean up these small details at the end of a large project.
As such, we writers have regular discussions about troubling words or troublesome tasks of cleaning up misunderstandings about capitalization, em dashes, and the like. Here's one of the latest, when we officially decided not to initial cap “internet” anymore, whether it’s used as a noun or an adjective.
As I recall, the decision came about something like this:
Angie 1.0 (me): Hey, everyone! Should we initial cap internet when we use it as a noun?
Angie 2.0: I don’t like capitalizing Internet. Or Web. Or InterWebs.
Katie: Yeah! I hate capping things.
Meghan: But didn’t we agree to initial cap “web” when we use it as a noun?
Angie 2.0: When did we agree to that?
Angie 1.0: Didn’t you get that email?
Meghan: Wired magazine doesn’t initial cap internet. And isn’t the rule about initial capping it in the process of changing?
Angie 2.0: And Wired is on the cutting edge of that change.
Angie 1.0: Right. Eventually nobody will initial cap internet.
Erin: Once the dictionaries catch up.
Meghan: Yes, let’s be on the cutting edge of change!
Everyone: Yeah!
Angie 1.0: Remember that movie The Net with Sandra Bullock?
Erin: Wasn’t that about identity theft on the internet?
Angie 2.0: Yeah, something like that. Do we have to initial cap “Net” when we use it as a noun?
Katie: We are NOT using “the Net.” Under any circumstances.
Everyone: YEAH!
A quick perusal of a few industry blogs revealed an inconsistent style on initial capping internet. So we turned to Wired for some guidance. In 2004, it declared that on its pages internet and web (and net) would not be initial capped anymore. We’re happy to officially join the trend—since we believe it will become a rule anyway.
It’s definitely becoming a rule in our house style guide.
Posted in Around the Office, Editorial Strategy, Style Guides and Such, Web Writing
