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.