How did the design
community come
to collective, tacit
agreement that
related outcomes, we’ll continu-
ally see our hard work rendered
ineffectual by lousy content.
to include, literally, the stuff we
design for—the content.
content is “someone
else’s problem”? Is it
beyond—or beneath—
our design sensibilities?
Is it simply out of
our control? Or does
the word “design”
itself automatically
imply “everything
but content.”
ernance of content. It plots an
achievable roadmap for individuals and organizations to create
and maintain content that audiences will actually care about. It
provides specific, well-informed
recommendations about how
we’re going to get from where
we are today (no content, or bad
content, or too much content)
to where we want to be (useful,
usable content people will actually care about).
We need to include content
strategy as a mandatory part
of any user experience-design
project, both short- and long-
term. Because, without clearly
defined ownership of content-
thoughts on “design”
How did the design community
come to collective, tacit agreement that content is “someone
else’s problem”? Is it beyond—or
beneath—our design sensibilities? Is it simply out of our control? Or does the word “design”
itself automatically imply
“everything but content,” thereby excusing us from all associated responsibilities?
The dictionary’s definitions
of “design” pretty much fall into
these three categories:
1. Visual design
2. Design for form and
function
3. Planning/a plan for a
defined, desired outcome
• Interaction design (function)
• Information architecture
(form)
• Usability engineering (test-
ing the outcome)
• Visual design
You’ll notice, of course, that
there’s nothing here about
content. Which means there’s
usually no one at the table
when we’re designing for user
experience. Which means no
one is truly, deeply considering
content recommendations and
requirements. Which is precise-
ly what’s causing the problems
in the 11th hour of any Web
project.
So, if “design” is the word we
use, we need to work hard to
expand the way we think and
talk about Web and UX design
speaking of content
The way we talk about content
can begin to shift the way our
project teams (and we as individual UX designers) approach
the UX design process. We need
to do more than just cajole
and complain. We need to
demonstrate specifically how
our design templates implode
because the imaginary content
we created them for turns out
to be different from the real
stuff. We need to explain that
the boxes on our site maps and
wireframes can’t just be filled
in by a copywriter. We need
to be able to articulate exactly
what’s going wrong in our content processes (or lack thereof);
why and where it’s going wrong;
and offer specific, actionable
recommendations about how to
fix it.
How can you change the con-
versation?
Don’t talk about content as
though it’s just copy. “Copy”
means words. “Content” means
audits, analyses, Web readabil-
ity, plain language, metadata,
structure, life cycle, and more.
It’s far more complicated and
time-consuming than just writ-
ing. Make sure the client under-
stands that content doesn’t just
“happen.”
Ask who owns the content,
and keep asking. The sooner
someone steps up and takes
responsibility, the more likely
tough questions will be asked
early in the project cycle.
Once you’ve identified con-
tent owners—the people who
request, create, approve, pub-
lish, and oversee the content—
engage them in conversation.