As an Information Architect and HUGE Martha Stewart fan, I have unrealistic expectations about how organized my house should be. I periodically take on projects to get sections of my house in order. I approach them similar to my work projects, with audit and analysis, followed by designing a solution and implementing the structure.
Early attempts at these projects would always stall in audit and analysis. I would come across the random things that just didn’t seem to go anywhere. Unable to find a home or at least some friends for said item would paralyze me into inaction.
But I’ve since found a solution that’s made my projects finish without fail… I get rid of it.
This doesn’t always work, but approaching a large organizational task by assuming that I will be getting rid of anything that is redundant or without a home clarifies the usefulness of the item and my emotions about it.
If I truly cannot part with it, then it needs a home. Usually that home is a highly prominent location that allows for organization based off of frequent use, like a utility drawer.
I’ve since transferred this process to wrangling source content. When I’m left with the stragglers that aren’t like anything else, I consider a series of questions:
"What will this information add to the experience?"
"What would be lost if this information went away?"
"Who would be affected if they look for this and can’t find it?
"By including this information, will it get in the way of more important information?"
If any or all of the answers to the above mean I need to keep it and there’s still no obvious home, perhaps I need to reconsider how I’ve organized things.
If I don’t need to keep it, then it’s simple. It just goes away.
Useful, usable website content is not about providing every single piece of information that anyone could ever think of, but instead focusing the information that people are most likely to want and use.
Getting rid of extra stuff clarifies your message and makes it easier for the majority of people to learn what they came there for.
So when you’re faced with leftover pieces of content start with "what if we got rid of it?" If you can answer that, the rest is much easier.
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.
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.
Kristina’s book, Content Strategy for the Web, arrived in the Brain Traffic office this week. (Psst: You can buy it here.) Watch the unveiling:
So, what are we going to do now that Kristina published a book? The same thing we do every day, of course: Try to take over the world! Congratulations, Kristina!
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.
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:
What will they do with our personal information?
Will it be protected?
How will we know?
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.)
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.
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 fromTravel + 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.
I am sort of a rarity at Brain Traffic, because I really don’t have much of a writing background. I probably wrote less than five papers in my entire college career, I get along better with Excel than Word (numbers and color coding!), and I like digging deep into the details of project management.
Although I have no immediate plans to transition into a web writer, learning about writing for the web has made me a better email communicator and project manager.
For example, here’s a first draft of an email I needed to send to a client:
Hi John,
I wanted to ask a few more questions about the newsletter project we spoke about today over the phone. I spoke with my supervisor and we need clarification on a few items. First, we are wondering about your timing and schedule. How many newsletters do you need? Have you decided how often these will be sent to subscribers? We also need more information about the requirements of each newsletter, such as number of content blocks, if advertisements appear, and if you are looking for us to create unique content.
It will also be helpful to understand your approval process, such as who will be approving the text and how long that usually takes.
Once I hear back from you I can draft the proposals. Thanks!
Beth
This email is a big ol’ mess.
It’s not easy for the client to pick out the action items and dissect what I need from him in order to complete a proposal. This email would be much more effective if the content was broken out in easy-to-understand sections with a clear guide for next steps at the end.
Also, itemizing the list of questions provides an easy way for the client to provide feedback to me. We cut down on the possibility of things getting missed this way.
Here’s a much more effective way of communicating this information:
Hi John,
I just had a quick connect with my supervisor about the newsletter proposal. I’m going to need a little more information than what I heard in our phone conversation last Thursday.
Timing
How often are the newsletters sent out?
How many newsletters do you need written?
Functional/design requirements
Do advertisements appear?
How many content blocks are there?
Do you need unique content created (opposed to editing existing content)
Approval
Who will be approving the copy?
How many business days does this require?
I’m hoping to receive clarification from you by the end of Thursday. I can then send you revised proposal on Friday. Thanks!
Beth
Some of the simplest principles for writing for the web can and should be applied to email communication:
Don’t use ambiguous language.
Eliminate unnecessary words.
Keep your sentences and paragraphs short.
When making lists, use bullets.
When giving instruction or steps, use numbered lists.
Your last sentence should include a clear call to action.
First, I admit it. I have a not-so-secret crush on John Hodgman. Don’t know him by name? Picture the cuddly geek who plays the PC on those Mac commercials. Yeah, this guy:
My crush is not physical. It’s intellectual. John Hodgman is one of the smartest, funniest men on earth right now. Plus, he knows a thing or two about content strategy and information architecture.
The organized truth of a fictional reference book In his book, More Information Than You Require (the second in a trilogy of almanacs about fake facts), Hodgman realizes his lifelong dream of writing a page-a-day calendar.
Each page includes a date and “an interesting historical fact that did not occur on that date.” Pure fiction.
Besides being hilarious, the facts are perfectly placed on the page. They appear as insets—a sidebar of sorts. It works because the facts:
Do not interrupt the flow, nor have anything to do with, the chapter in which they appear
Do not need to be read chronologically
Are there for those who, indeed, require more information
For example, in the chapter “Even More More Information Than You Require, With a Special Emphasis on Food and Animals (A Kind of Food),” we find this gem:
July 3 1983, NEWTON, MA: The first suburban white child breakdances.
This fake fact has nothing to do with food. Or animals. Yet there it is. And I love it.
Typically, I wouldn’t applaud an author for providing aimless fodder, but each one goes perfectly with the book’s overall theme. It just doesn’t fit neatly into a chapter.
How I applied Hodgman’s genius to web content I thought of Hodgman’s book during a client meeting recently. While reviewing the client’s sitemap, I was having trouble understanding the position of a particular page. It seemed out of place.
After asking a few strategic questions about the page’s planned content, it became clear to me that it included “nice to know” information. The content was related to the site’s main purpose, but did not fit the overall story.
So, I took a page—not literally, though he encourages it—from Hodgman’s book. I suggested placing this content outside of the site’s main navigation, perhaps as a sidebar throughout the site. That way, the information would be there, but it wouldn’t get in the way.
My client loved this suggestion. They created a new sitemap and new wireframes to reflect this direction. And I wrote a little sidebar that linked to the “nice to know” information.
I doubt my copy will crack people up the way Hodgman’s phony historical tidbits do, but his approach worked on my client’s site.
More information about John Hodgman I encourage you to develop your own crush on my little Hodgy. Perhaps you will discover more ways to apply his methods to web content.
Here are some links to help you stalk him from afar:
