{"rowid": 275, "title": "Context First: Web Strategy in Four Handy Ws", "contents": "Many, many years ago, before web design became my proper job, I trained and worked as a journalist. I studied publishing in London and spent three fun years learning how to take a few little nuggets of information and turn them into a story. I learned a bunch of stuff that has all been a huge help to my design career. Flatplanning, layout, typographic theory. All of these disciplines have since translated really well to web design, but without doubt the most useful thing I learned was how to ask difficult questions.\n\nPretty much from day one of journalism school they hammer into you the importance of the Five Ws. Five disarmingly simple lines of enquiry that eloquently manage to provide the meat of any decent story. And with alliteration thrown in too. For a young journo, it\u2019s almost too good to be true.\n\nWho? What? Where? When? Why? It seems so obvious to almost be trite but, fundamentally, any story that manages to answer those questions for the reader is doing a pretty good job. You\u2019ll probably have noticed feeling underwhelmed by certain news pieces in the past \u2013 disappointed, like something was missing. Some irritating oversight that really lets the story down. No doubt it was one of the Ws \u2013 those innocuous little suckers are generally only noticeable by their absence, but they sure get missed when they\u2019re not there. \n\nQuestion everything\n\nI\u2019ve always been curious. An inveterate tinkerer with things and asker of dopey questions, often to the point of abject annoyance for anyone unfortunate enough to have ended up in my line of fire. So, naturally, the Five Ws started drifting into other areas of my life. I\u2019d scrutinize everything, trying to justify or explain my rationale using these Ws, but I\u2019d also find myself ripping apart the stuff that clearly couldn\u2019t justify itself against the same criteria.\n\nSo when I started working as a designer I applied the same logic and, sure enough, the Ws pretty much mapped to the exact same needs we had for gathering requirements at the start of a project. It seemed so obvious, such a simple way to establish the purpose of a product. What was it for? Why we were making it? And, of course, who were we making it for? It forced clients to stop and think, when really what they wanted was to get going and see something shiny. Sometimes that was a tricky conversation to have, but it\u2019s no coincidence that those who got it also understood the value of strategy and went on to have good solid products, while those that didn\u2019t often ended up with arrogantly insular and very shiny but ultimately unsatisfying and expendable products. Empty vessels make the most noise and all that\u2026\n\nContent first\n\nI was both surprised and pleased when the whole content first idea started to rear its head a couple of years back. Pleased, because without doubt it\u2019s absolutely the right way to work. And surprised, because personally it\u2019s always been the way I\u2019ve done it \u2013 I wasn\u2019t aware there was even an alternative way. Content in some form or another is the whole reason we were making the things we were making. I can\u2019t even imagine how you\u2019d start figuring out what a site needs to do, how it should be structured, or how it should look without a really good idea of what that content might be. It baffles me still that this was somehow news to a lot of people. What on earth were they doing? Design without purpose is just folly, surely?\n\nIt\u2019s great to see the idea gaining momentum but, having watched it unfold, it occurred to me recently that although it\u2019s fantastic to see a tangible shift in thinking \u2013 away from those bleak times, where making things up was somehow deemed an appropriate way to do things \u2013 there\u2019s now a new bad guy in town.\n\nWith any buzzword solution of the moment, there\u2019s always a catch, and it seems like some have taken the content first approach a little too literally. By which I mean, it\u2019s literally the first thing they do. The project starts, there\u2019s a very cursory nod towards gathering requirements, and off they go, cranking content. Writing copy, making video, commissioning illustrations.\n\nAll that\u2019s happened is that the \u2018making stuff up\u2019 part has shifted along the line, away from layout and UI, back to the content. \n\nStarting is too easy\n\nI can\u2019t remember where I first heard that phrase, but it\u2019s a great sentiment which applies to so much of what we do on the web. The medium is so accessible and to an extent disposable; throwing things together quickly carries far less burden than in any other industry. We\u2019re used to tweaking as we go, changing bits, iterating things into shape. The ubiquitous beta tag has become the ultimate caveat, and has made the unfinished and unpolished acceptable. Of course, that can work brilliantly in some circumstances. Occasionally, a product offers such a paradigm shift it\u2019s beyond the level of deep planning and prelaunch finessing we\u2019d ideally like. But, in the main, for most client sites we work on, there really is no excuse not to do things properly. To ask the tricky questions, to challenge preconceptions and really understand the Ws behind the products we\u2019re making before we even start. \n\nThe four Ws\n\nFor product definition, only four of the five Ws really apply, although there\u2019s a lot of discussion around the idea of when being an influencing factor. For example, the context of a user\u2019s engagement with your product is something you can make a call on depending on the specifics of the project.\n\nSo, here\u2019s my take on the four essential Ws. I\u2019ll point out here that, of course, these are not intended to be autocratic dictums. Your needs may differ, your clients\u2019 needs may differ, but these four starting points will get you pretty close to where you need to be.\n\nWho \n\nIt\u2019s surprising just how many projects start without a real understanding of the intended audience. Many clients think they have an idea, but without really knowing \u2013 it\u2019s presumptive at best, and we all know what presumption is the mother of, right? Of course, we can\u2019t know our audiences in the same way a small shop owner might know their customers. But we can at least strive to find out what type of people are likely to be using the product. I\u2019m not talking about deep user research. That should come later.\n\nThese are the absolute basics. What\u2019s the context for their visit? How informed are they? What\u2019s their level of comprehension? Are they able to self-identify and relate to categories you have created? I could go on, and it changes on a per-project basis. You\u2019ll only find this out by speaking to them, if not in person, then indirectly through surveys, questionnaires or polls. The mechanism is less important than actually reaching out and engaging with them, because without that understanding it\u2019s impossible to start to design with any empathy.\n\nWhat\n\nOnce you become deeply involved directly with a product or service, it\u2019s notoriously difficult to see things as an outsider would. You learn the thing inside and out, you develop shortcuts and internal phraseology. Colloquialisms creep in. You become too close. So it\u2019s no surprise when clients sometimes struggle to explain what it is their product actually does in a way that others can understand.\n\nOften products are complex but, really, the core reasons behind someone wanting to use that product are very simple. There\u2019s a value proposition for the customer and, if they choose to engage with it, there\u2019s a value exchange. If that proposition or exchange isn\u2019t transparent, then people become confused and will likely go elsewhere. Make sure both your client and you really understand what that proposition is and, in turn, what the expected exchange should be. In a nutshell: what is the intended outcome of that engagement? Often the best way to do this is strip everything back to nothing. Verbosity is rife on the web. Just because it\u2019s easy to create content, that shouldn\u2019t be a reason to do so. Figure out what the value proposition is and then reintroduce content elements that genuinely help explain or present that to a level that is appropriate for the audience. \n\nWhy \n\nIn advertising, they talk about the truths behind a product or service. Truths can be both tangible or abstract, but the most important part is the resonance those truths hit with a customer. In a digital product or service those truths are often exposed as benefits. Why is this what I need? Why will it work for me? Why should I trust you? The why is one of the more fluffy Ws, yet it\u2019s such an important one to nail. Clients can get prickly when you ask them to justify the why behind their product, but it\u2019s a fantastic way to make sure the value proposition is clear, realistic and meets with the expectations of both client and customer.\n\nIt\u2019s our job as designers to question things: we\u2019re not just a pair of hands for clients. Just recently I spoke to a potential client about a site for his business. I asked him why people would use his product and also why his product seemed so fractured in its direction. He couldnt answer that question so, instead of ploughing on regardless, he went back to his directors and is now re-evaluating that business. It was awkward but he thanked me and hopefully he\u2019ll have a better product as a result.\n\nWhere\n\nIn this instance, where is not so much a geographical thing, although in some cases that level of context may indeed become a influencing factor\u2026 The where we\u2019re talking about here is the position of the product in relation to others around it. By looking at competitors or similar services around the one you are designing, you can start to get a sense for many of the things that are otherwise hard to pin down or have yet to be defined. For example, in a collection of sites all selling cars, where does yours fit most closely? Where are the overlaps? How are they communicating to their customers? How is the product range presented or categorized?\n\nIt\u2019s good to look around and see how others are doing it. Not in a quest for homogeneity but more to reference or to avoid certain patterns that may or may not make sense for your own particular product. Clients often strive to be different for the sake of it. They feel they need to provide distinction by going against the flow a bit. We know different. We know users love convention. They embrace familiar mental models. They\u2019re comfortable with things that they\u2019ve experienced elsewhere. By showing your client that position is a vital part of their strategy, you can help shape their product into something great. \n\nTo conclude\n\nSo there we have it \u2013 the four Ws. Each part tells a different and vital part of the story you need to be able to make a really good product. It might sound like a lot of work, particularly when the client is breathing down your neck expecting to see things, but without those pieces in place, the story you\u2019re building your product on, and the content that you\u2019re creating to form that product can only ever fit into one genre. Fiction.", "year": "2011", "author": "Alex Morris", "author_slug": "alexmorris", "published": "2011-12-10T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2011/context-first/", "topic": "content"}
{"rowid": 287, "title": "Extracting the Content", "contents": "As we throw away our canvas in approaches and yearn for a content-out process, there remains a pain point: the Content. It is spoken of in the hushed tones usually reserved for Lord Voldemort. The-thing-that-someone-else-is-responsible-for-that-must-not-be-named.\n\nDesigners and developers have been burned before by not knowing what the Content is, how long it is, what style it is and when the hell it\u2019s actually going to be delivered, in internet eons past. Warily, they ask clients for it. But clients don\u2019t know what to make, or what is good, because no one taught them this in business school. Designers struggle to describe what they need and when, so the conversation gets put off until it\u2019s almost too late, and then everyone is relieved that they can take the cop-out of putting up a blog and maybe some product descriptions from the brochure.\n\nThe Content in content out.\n\nI\u2019m guessing, as a smart, sophisticated, and, may I say, nicely-scented reader of the honourable and venerable tradition of 24 ways, that you sense something better is out there. Bunches of boxes to fill in just don\u2019t cut it any more in a responsive web design world. The first question is, how are you going to design something to ensure users have the easiest access to the best Content, if you haven\u2019t defined at the beginning what that Content is? Of course, it\u2019s more than possible that your clients have done lots of user research before approaching you to start this project, and have a plethora of finely tuned Content for you to design with.\n\nHave you finished laughing yet? Alright then. Let\u2019s just assume that, for whatever reason of gross oversight, this hasn\u2019t happened. What next?\n\nBringing up Content for the first time with a client is like discussing contraception when you\u2019re in a new relationship. It might be awkward and either party would probably rather be doing something else, but it needs to be broached before any action happens (that, and it\u2019s disastrous to assume the other party has the matter in hand). If we can\u2019t talk about it, how can we expect people to be doing it right and not making stupid mistakes? That being the case, how do we talk about Content? Let\u2019s start by finding a way to talk about it without blushing and scuffing our shoes. And there\u2019s a reason I\u2019ve been treating Content as a Proper Noun. \n\nThe first step, and I mean really-first-step-way-back-at-the-beginning-of-the-project-while-you-are-still-scoping-out-what-the-hell-you-might-do-for-each-other-and-it\u2019s-still-all-a-bit-awkward-like-a-first-date, is for you to explain to the client how important it is that you, together, work out what is important to your users as part of the user experience design, so that your users get the best user experience. The trouble is that, in most cases, this would lead to blank stares, possibly followed by a light cough and a query about using Comic Sans because it seems friendly.\n\nLet\u2019s start by ensuring your clients understand the task ahead. You see, all the time we talk about the Content we do our clients a big disservice. Content is poorly defined. It looms over a project completion point like an unscalable (in the sense of a dozen stacked Kilimanjaros), seething, massive, singular entity. The Content.\n\nDefining the problem. \n\nWe should really be thinking of the Content as \u2018contents\u2019; as many parts that come together to form a mighty experience, like hit 90s kids\u2019 TV show Mighty Morphin Power Rangers*.\n\n*For those of you who might have missed the Power Rangers, they were five teenagers with attitude, each given crazy mad individual skillz and a coloured lycra suit from an alien overlord. In return, they had to fight a new monster of the week using their abilities and weaponry in sync (even if the audio was not) and then, finally, in thrilling combination as a Humongous Mechanoid Machine of Awesome. They literally joined their individual selves, accessories and vehicles into a big robot. It was a toy manufacturer\u2019s wet dream.\n\nSo, why do I say Content is like the Power Rangers? Because Content is not just a humongous mecha. It is a combination of well-crafted pieces of contents that come together to form a well-crafted humongous mecha. Of Content.\n\nThe Red Power Ranger was always the leader. You can imagine your text contents, found on about pages, product descriptions, blog articles, and so on, as being your Red Power Ranger.\n\nMaybe your pictures are your Yellow Power Ranger; video is Blue (not used as much as the others, but really impressive when given a good storyline); maybe Pink is your infographics (it\u2019s wrong to find it sexier than the other equally important Rangers, but you kind of do anyway). And so on. \n\nThese bits of content \u2013 Red Text Ranger, Yellow Picture Ranger and others \u2013 often join together on a page, like they are teaming up to fight the bad guy in an action scene, and when they all come together (your standard workaday huge mecha) in a launched site, that\u2019s when Content becomes an entity.\n\nWhile you might have a vision for the whole site, Content rarely works that way. Of course, you keep your eye on the bigger prize, the completion of your mega robot, but to get there you need to assemble your working parts, the cogs and springs of contents that will mesh together to finally create your Humongous Mecha of Content. You create parts and join them to form a whole. (It\u2019s rarely seamless; often we need to adjust as we go, but we can create our Mecha\u2019s blueprint by making sure we have all the requisite parts.)\n\nThe point here is the order these parts were created. No alien overlord plans a Humongous Mechanoid and then thinks, \u201cGee, how can I split this into smaller fighting units powered by teenagers in snazzy shiny suits?\u201d No toy manufacturer goes into production of a mega robot, made up of model mecha vehicles with detachable arsenal, without thinking how they will easily fit back together to form the \u2018Buy all five now to create the mega robot\u2019 set. No good contents are created as a singular entity and chunked up to be slotted in to place any which way, into the body of a site.\n\nThink contents, not the Content. Think of contents as smaller units, or as a plural. The Content is what you have at the end. The contents are what you are creating and they are easy to break down. You are no longer scaling the unscalable. You can draw the map and plot the path, page by page, section by section.\n\nThe page table is your friend\n\nTo do this, I use a page table. A page table is a simple table template you can create in the word processor of your choice, that you use to tell you everything about the contents of a page \u2013 everything except the contents itself. \n\nHere\u2019s a page table I created for an employee\u2019s guide to redundancy in the alpha.gov.uk website:\n\n \n\nGuide to redundancy for employees\n\n\n\tPage objective: Provide specific information for employees who are facing redundancy about the process, their options and next steps.\n\tSource content: directgov page on Redundancy.\n\tScope: In scope\n\n\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\tPage title \n\t\t\t An employee\u2019s guide to redundancy \n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\tPriority content \n\t\t\t Message: You have rights as an employee facing redundancy\nMethod: A guide written in plain English, with links to appropriate additional content.\nA video guide (out of scope).\nCovers the stages of redundancy and rights for those in trade unions and not in trade unions. Glossary of unfamiliar terms.\nCall to action: Read full guide, act to explore redundancy actions, benefits or new employment.\nAssets: link to redundancy calculator. \n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\tSecondary \n\t\t\t Related items, or popular additional links. \nAdditional tools, such as search and suggestions.\n\n\n\n\tlocation set v not set states\n\tmicrocopy encouraging location set where location may make a difference to the content \u2013 ie, Scotland/Northern Ireland.\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\tTertiary \n\t\t\t Footer and standard links. \n\t\t\n\n\n\n\tContent creation: Content exists but was created within the constraints of the previous CMS. Review, correct and edit where necessary.\n\tMaintenance: should be flagged for review upon advice from Department of Work and Pensions, and annually.\n\tTechnology/Publishing/Policy implications: Should be reviewed once the glossary styles have been decided. No video guide in scope at this time, so languages should be simple and screen reader friendly.\n\tReliance on third parties: None, all content and source exists in house.\n\tOutstanding questions: None.\n\n\n \n\nDownload a copy of this page table\n\nThis particular page table template owes a lot to Brain Traffic\u2019s version found in Kristina Halvorson\u2019s book Content Strategy for the Web. With smaller clients than, say, the government, I might use something a bit more casual. With clients who like timescales and deadlines, I might turn it into a covering sheet, with signatures and agreements from two departments who have to work together to get the piece done on time.\n\nI use page tables, and the process of working through them, to reassure clients that I understand the task they face and that I can help them break it down section by section, page stack to page, down to product descriptions and interaction copy. About 80% of my clients break into relieved smiles. Most clients want to work with you to produce something good, they just don\u2019t understand how, and they want you to show them the mountain path on the map. With page tables, clients can understand that with baby steps they can break down their content requirements and commission content they need in time for the designers to work with it (as opposed to around it).  If I was Santa, these clients would be on my nice list for sure.\n\nMy own special brand of Voldemort-content-evilness comes in how I wield my page tables for the other 20%. Page tables are not always thrilling, I\u2019ll admit. Sometimes they get ignored in favour of other things, yet they are crucial to the continual growth and maintenance of a truly content-led site. For these naughty list clients who, even when given the gift of the page table, continually say \u201cOoh, yes. Content. Right\u201d, I have a special gift. I have a stack of recycled paper under my desk and a cheap black and white laser printer. And I print a blank page table for every conceivable page I can find on the planned redesign. If I\u2019m feeling extra nice, I hole punch them and put them in a fat binder. \n\nThere is nothing like saying, \u201cThis is all the contents you need to have in hand for launch\u201d, and the satisfying thud the binder makes as it hits the table top, to galvanize even the naughtiest clients to start working with you to create the content you need to really create in a content-out way.", "year": "2011", "author": "Relly Annett-Baker", "author_slug": "rellyannettbaker", "published": "2011-12-15T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2011/extracting-the-content/", "topic": "content"}