12 Feb 2014
I have been mulling over my Lightning Talk at last week’s London Agile Content Meetup. My five-minute talk tried to cram far too many ideas in (it’s a learning curve!), but I’m glad that one point I made resonated with so many.
The content maze:
how an evening’s browsing is such a fragmented experience; pursuing & retracing our steps along numerous paths before satisfaction is (hopefully) achieved! We all know it – popping back and forth between content and search result pages, jumping from our social media interface into products, reviews, other’s minds and back again.
It’s the resoundingly obvious but much less discussed area of web user experience.
Most professional concern (from the designer/UX team/client) is focused on:
- how content works across a single website
- how brand content or a campaign works across several channels
Instead, the issue of the content maze is about how content ‘joins up’ with each other pleasingly and effectively, and asks: who designs this?
I was advocating the role of content strategists in the quest to improve our experience across the web (since they’ll be wrapping up the presents that come to the party).
Doing so would be forward planning for a future – different – browsing scenario. More widespread application of schema for any content you produce will align it / juxtapose it / embed it (or in some damn way position it!) with other similar or complementary content.
To me it’s the necessary development to counter information overload. It’s probably also the one big business/SEO industry wouldn’t like to see right now as it blows apart the notion of the ‘common formula for SEO success’ – instead refocusing on relevance – ‘what works for me at this moment in time’.
It’s the holy grail of personalisation/individual curation – based on my choice rather than what any individual corporation wants me to see.
I’d envisaged this being based on a user’s preferences and could see it working through a personalised, display interface that recognised a number of factors such as:
- what mood I am in
- what outcome do I want
- which hat I have on right now
- who I follow or respect
- do I want slow content or an elevator pitch… etc etc
Two main arguments keep coming up in my head. Firstly loss of serendipity. But I expect there’ll still be plenty of room for that. Secondly – defining intent – how often do we actually know what we want and how we want it?
Mind-boggling when you think of the rich and complex data up for grabs, and the unknowns around the devices we’ll use.
But really, let’s design it rather than live with what emerges.
A bit of an aside: it’s the bit ‘between the panels’!
It reminds me of the fascinating discussion in Scott McCloud’s seminal ‘Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art‘. He explains the magical power of the ‘gutter’ – the bit between the panels in a linear cartoon, the invisible transition. I can’t recommend this book enough for anyone interested in story-telling of any kind, it has all kinds of relevance to digital design. The gist being that juxtaposed combinations of visual/textual experience can alchemically develop an overriding identity and resonance in the imagination of the user, at the point of the transition between them.
On Monday 3 Feb 2014 I gave a ‘lightning talk’ at the London Agile Content Meetup at the Book Club, Shoreditch.
This followed the ‘ignite’ quickfire presentation format. Each speaker gets five minutes and 20 slides. That breaks down to just 15 seconds per slide – and the slides are on automatic rotation. Editing down your ideas is quite a challenge if you unwisely pick such a broad subject as I did!
However, this was somewhat fitting as my talk centred on how the content we create can be aided by having a conventional, standardised formula to follow – but how this also has limitations.
My talk was a personal observation and some ideas on content, design & formulaic experiences. I’d been thinking a lot about ‘modular’ building – whether of chunks of content, or HTML design. Five minutes probably didn’t do it justice. So in the interests of clarity, here’s a run-down of my talk, including a few bits I didn’t have time to put in.
Standard design structures are good for User Experience, as well as for web creators
I’ve spent most of my online career working for large organisations on huge websites. I’ve been a web designer, content editor, a CMS migration project-manager at Camden Council, and was Web and Digital Communications Manager at Bournemouth University for seven years.
So I recognise the needs of those types of large-scale websites. Standardisation is key. Having ‘page type templates’ to deal with particular kinds of content (such as news or events) and agreed design layout elements has two benefits. It helps provide consistency of user experience, and it makes it easier for the people creating the pages.
Having a pro-forma structure for a content entity such as a product simply makes sense for users and for the databases and content-management systems that house them, since it allows the search and filtering we’re familiar with on e-commerce sites.
I’m a keen student of Content Strategy tenets such as planned, structured content “chunks not blobs”, the benefits of metadata, and the challenges of separating content from design to allow for re-purposing. I’m aware of the need for content to ‘know itself’ to display differently across various devices or channels.
A couple of years back I left my university web-manager job & became a consultant ‘for hire’.
Building websites myself, and an appreciation of WordPress themes…
As well as consulting on Content Strategy and large-scale content projects, I was also aiming to be a one-stop-shop for smaller businesses. I went back to building websites myself, learning HTML5 and CSS3 (brushing up on where I left my coding skills back in 2002) and quickly coming to appreciate the benefits of using WordPress as a Content-Management System.
In this shift, I became much more exposed to the visual design aspect of websites.
I discovered the wonderful world of WordPress themes – off-the-shelf designs that you can purchase for minimal amounts, customise in various ways, leaving time to concentrate on the content more than the ‘build’.There are at time of writing, nearly 4k website themes for the WordPress platform available on Themeforest – and many more elsewhere – a whole shiny showcase of professional, affordable web designs.
Any decent WordPress theme offers the usual content-type suspects (news, events, reviews, portfolio, gallery, about us, our team etc) – recognised pages which have become the norm.
Some themes also offer all the layout elements you’ll ever need – tabs, toggles, alert boxes, call outs, blockquotes etc etc. But at the end of the day they are just receptacles for the content we produce, providing a standard layout hierarchy & navigation.
A lot of the themes are built on popular HTML frameworks such as Bootstrap or Zurb, themselves created in a modular fashion, for ease and consistency. So underneath the colours and shapes are modular construction methods for styling. Front end web development is recognising the sense in applying ‘atomic’ design principles (nod to Brad Frost’s post & comments which I found mentioned in Net mag whilst thinking about my talk).
Formulaic design experiences
There’s a whole cottage industry of developers providing this formulaic front-end structure and user experience. Bearing in mind WordPress powers approximately 20% of websites (allegedly) that’s quite a bit of influence in terms of what’s being served up.
The web industry has always been reliant on trends & imitating the designs that work for people.
The WordPress themes are propagating conventions of display structures – intelligent evolution hopefully – in that the design elements that work for people take hold and stick around, whist fads pass by.
So this obsession with structure is a sensible response to the challenges of online content. Two things struck me as I looked at theme after theme.
An earlier speaker Rahel Bailie told us about ‘COPE’ (Create Once Publish Everywhere) and Rupert Bowater explained content modelling dilemmas of using various schema/web standards such as RDFa / microdata etc.
Blocks of content/data. Blocks for styling. Ease of use for creators. What about pushing this forward by having a ‘ready-to-use’ content modelled WordPress theme?
Just throwing that one out for discussion!
The second thing is that design-wise, chunking the content up to populate standard design elements can create ‘samey’ websites. Predictable. Alluring yet somehow disappointing. How effective they are obviously depends on the content we fill them with!
Changing Trends in Content/Design Consumption…Changing Web Experiences
Are the structures we’ve got at at the moment going to be all we’ve got? Articles / sliders / carousels / menus / fat footers / search / tags / teasers / related links and more?
All the usual suspects. And it made me think…how often is the content we create influenced by the available display forms? For example, think about writing a heading or text just long enough to fit onto a slider, or a teaser box, how overlaid drop-down navigation menus allow much more space and choice, whereas a fixed floating top navigation needs to be more limited.
…I couldn’t really find anything that changed my web experience…
Inventing the Ways the Content Joins Up
And so for all the tagged, re-purposed content we plan on creating for all those smaller screens, mobile devices, and future ‘wearables’….I realised…
I don’t like the actual experience of using the web – not one or any particular sites – but the fact that it is always a fragmented experience, never a coherent journey.
A typical evening’s browsing looks like this:
I hope some of you out there will know what I mean! Whether you’re jumping back & forward from your search results, getting sucked in by social media, then thrust out again onto various websites, getting Facebook fatigue, it can be a really frustrating experience.
I think it’s our job as Content Strategists to think about designing the experience (not just our individual sites).
More about The Content Maze
This might be in helping design the kind of curation or aggregation tools we use. The Google Knowledge Graph is the nearest we get at the moment to a mainstream example of content ‘aggregation’ of data. And I’m aware of Storify and Scoop.It for curation – but what will the more mainstream tools of the future look like?
I talked about content knowing itself – what about using more imaginative, meaningful schemas using new parameters…?
We are used to working in an insular way to get the best, get the edge for our business, our employer, our client.
I think we need to disconnect from our brands and invent an ‘organisation-neutral’ vision.
What will this experience involve? It’s definitely something about aggregation. It might involve designing for open data. It might mean having a more personalised ‘information architecture’ across sites. It could be more immersive satisfactory social tools. And it will probably be about associative, contextual search results.
So in summary, triggered by a sudden exposure to all these formulaic design elements (which I fully respect, and know they do help us with content logic), I found myself asking shouldn’t there be something more on the menu?
And what is the role of the Content Strategy community in all of this?
So that was the talk. Certainly asking more questions than giving answers, but hopefully stimulating some discussion for the Meetup attendees.
Thanks to London Agile Content organisers Jonathan Kahn and Richard Ingrams for giving me the chance to spout off!
17 Jan 2013
Now here’s a serious consideration for all the scavengers amongst us.
I was brought up respecting the mystery and romance of second-hand shops, the unwanted-treasure potential of jumble sales. And more recently I discovered the enduring hope associated with the thought of a good car boot sale.
What’s going to happen in the future with a dearth of second-hand books and music?
They’ll be humbly and invisibly residing on the dead hard-drives of the future or worse still floating in planet-killing cloud megaservers of corporate technology giants. A corner of the cloud which will be forever our imagination, but out of sight and out of mind.
I’m not sure who has the stats, but if you look at ownership of books and music in digital format (versus the actual items sitting on people’s bookshelves), now and compared to ten years ago, we can all guess the trend. Which is only going to speed up with tablets and e-readers ubiquitous…
More people, smaller spaces to live in. All the storage runs out quicker. We’re in the peak charity shop age now, and once we’ve given them away, they’re gone forever.
(Unless like me you are buying up everyone else’s junk – perhaps I’ll have that secondhand bookshop one day?)
Or… maybe the user-experience gods will bestow upon us fabulous serendipitous interfaces replicating not just the limitless choice which we have now but the joy and fear experienced in the junk shops and jumble sales of the past?
But just to keep in the negative vein, I think the inherent formula is shot. In the past the excitement was that you found a ‘physical’ bargain no-one else had. With digital replication, that’s gone as well.
I hope we keep sharing around the wonderfully packaged vinyl and dog-eared manuscripts for as long as we can. And if anyone has a dvd version of the movie Coup de Foudre (dir. Diane Kurys, 1983) please get in touch (not yet available on UK Netflix!).
Photo credit: 5th Dunstable Scouts Jumble Sale – 2 March 2013!
17 Jan 2013
When I worked at Penguin Books in the 1990s, I was fortunate to work with an inspirational person whose job it was (from a darkened office deep in London W8) to manage the publishers’ full fiction and non-fiction stocklists. These chunky A4 booklets were printed on a monthly basis and needed to take into account every single available title and its current price as well as available stockpacks and gift-sets.
Although Penguin had a robust in-house stock management IT system, the entire list of books published by Penguin, Puffin and partner publishers like Rough Guides, needed to be translated into meaningful sections and categories via the Penguin Stocklist. This allowed staff in bookshops over the world to find information about the book they needed, and to order it. This was well before you could just ‘look it up’ online. Amazon was still four or five years off its first online offerings.
This was pre-digital, the days of using Tippex for correcting typing mistakes, of relying on mammoth chuntering photocopiers to distribute information, and let’s be clear – golfball typewriters were only just being hauled out of office buildings to die peacefully and heavily somewhere (where did they all go?). Email was for early-adopters only, internal memos still rushing around buildings and to warehouses carried in mail trolleys and vans.
The point is that this one person had an encyclopedic knowledge of Penguin’s back catalogue, which was added to by maybe 150+ titles each month, and yet she knew by heart most of the author’s names and titles. I knew quite a few individual book numbers (ISBNs) myself but nothing could match the details held in Lorna’s head or the accuracy of each of these monthly stocklists. Mistakes were quite unheard of (and unlike today, would have been spotted by similarly obsessive and eagle-eyed book retailers).
The reams of available titles were made sense of by careful categorisation and rolling audits.
These days information management techniques such as this have changed beyond recognition. We expect to see in milliseconds every available image or text around a particular keyword or phrase. Categories went out of fashion when search wowed us.
But now we are shifting from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0, and with a great amount of information just useless noise, the curation of relevant content (‘people tagging things as they publish’) has become hot again via blogs and Twitter hashtags. Tagging helps us promote our stuff, and helps others find what they want, and parcels stuff off for ‘personalisation’ of content in the future.
Online content needs to be categorised to enable syndication, to ensure it is findable and can be connected with other similar content. There is geeky excitement over shared and open data whereby content ‘knows about itself’ for want of a better way of describing it – and can syndicate itself in more ways than originally envisaged. You can imagine lots of scenarios, many of which are happening already in comparison sites, one-stop travel shops etc.
Microformats* already help content editors indicate the type of information pages hold (such as address data or authorship data or event data), allowing the potential for mashups with data on other sites. You only have to look at content aggregated around maps for instance, or Google ‘at a glance’ section regarding local information, to see this kind of ‘machine-readable knowledge’ in action.
What do you use categories for? Anyone who has a blog will know about blog categories for sure. What about Twitter lists – do you create these to help with information overload?
I have lost touch with Lorna T. – the indefatigable Penguin Stocklist guru – but if you’re out there please get in touch if you find this post!
“Microformats are a way of adding simple markup to human-readable data items such as events, contact details or locations, on web pages, so that the information in them can be extracted by software and indexed, searched for, saved, cross-referenced or combined.”
photo credit: Hello Typewriter blog http://hellotypewriter.tumblr.com/