Content strategy + Content management
123 views
Skip to first unread message
Karen McGrane
Feb 2, 2012, 12:31:42 PM2/2/12
to Content Strategy
Hi everyone,
I am prepping a two-day workshop that will be an introduction to content strategy and content management.
The audience for the workshop will be either writers or developers who have some familiarity with writing, document management, and databases. They may not know much about content strategy, and they may not have a birds-eye view of how a web CMS or enterprise CMS works.
I'm writing to ask what topics you would expect to see covered in a workshop about CS and CMS?
Rahel Anne Bailie
Feb 2, 2012, 2:28:55 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Interesting - I'm also curious to know, as I have a 1-day (scalable to 2-day) workshop as an intro to CS, and wonder if I've missed anything. So do reply on list, please!
Rahel Anne
Bailie (@rahelab)
Content Strategist / Content Management / Information Architecture
Intentional Design Inc. www.intentionaldesign.ca
Content strategies for business impact
http://about.me/rahel.bailie
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group.
To post to this group, send email to content...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrate...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Matt Moore
Feb 2, 2012, 4:21:11 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Focusing on CMS (rather than CS), the thing I would like to see are:
- How a CMS supports the content mgt lifecycle;
- What the components of a CMS and which roles use which components;
- A brief survey of what's in the marketplace and (very important this) how they are different;
- Top 10 gotchas with CMS use.
- How a CMS supports the content mgt lifecycle;
- What the components of a CMS and which roles use which components;
- A brief survey of what's in the marketplace and (very important this) how they are different;
- Top 10 gotchas with CMS use.
Matt Moore
+61 423 784 504
ma...@innotecture.com.au
Sent from my iPhone
the Baraness
Feb 2, 2012, 5:12:36 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
- How you can map your workflow to sales engagement cycles (b2b content marketing)
- How to integrate other platforms
- How to maintain consistency throughout an enterprise organization for content management, delivery and governance--
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man."
-- The BL
- How to integrate other platforms
- How to maintain consistency throughout an enterprise organization for content management, delivery and governance
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man."
-- The BL
Rick Yagodich
Feb 2, 2012, 5:36:24 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Well, I'll ignore whether I am overlapping with anyone else's
comments, and come at this from a purely content-structural
perspective:
- Content as a re-usable, structured entity collection (consider content in situ for writing, ex situ for structure)
- Re-usability of structures is as fundamental as re-usability
of content instances
- "Content" designed for a one-off use in a one-off display is
not manageable content
- Workflow: to manage content, the tools (and the plan) to manage its entire lifecycle are required
- If the provided author experience (AX) is crap, so will the
content entered be
- (for dev version of workshop): the structure of the content store and the way the users (both sets: clients, and authors) view it do not match - get over it and don't force them to view it the same way you do
James Callan
Feb 2, 2012, 5:42:33 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
One thing that would be really useful: Some discussion of how writers
and devs can communicate better with each other. In my experience,
writers don't feel like it's necessary to talk with devs, and vice
versa. Some introduction into how they can make each other's jobs
easier would be terrific.
and devs can communicate better with each other. In my experience,
writers don't feel like it's necessary to talk with devs, and vice
versa. Some introduction into how they can make each other's jobs
easier would be terrific.
Related: What writers should ask for in a CMS. I seem to have a knack
for working in places that don't have a CMS, and many of the writers
have no idea about what would make a CMS more useful for them, or how
to ask for (or demand) that from the people responsible for deciding
on and setting up the CMS of choice.
James
Noz Urbina
Feb 2, 2012, 5:54:28 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
A small overview of why home grown cms platforms grow to suck over time. Buy something (or get some open source) built and fit for purpose, even I'd you have devs. Topic title: the (many) risks of reinventing the wheel.
sent from an itty bitty mobile device with an annoying keyboard
On Feb 2, 2012 11:43 PM, "James Callan" <scare...@gmail.com> wrote:
One thing that would be really useful: Some discussion of how writers
and devs can communicate better with each other. In my experience,
writers don't feel like it's necessary to talk with devs, and vice
versa. Some introduction into how they can make each other's jobs
easier would be terrific.
Related: What writers should ask for in a CMS. I seem to have a knack
for working in places that don't have a CMS, and many of the writers
have no idea about what would make a CMS more useful for them, or how
to ask for (or demand) that from the people responsible for deciding
on and setting up the CMS of choice.
James
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Karen McGrane <karen....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I...
Mollye Barrett
Feb 2, 2012, 6:35:48 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
What a great opportunity!
I'd focus on the content lifecycle. Mapped out, nodes in the lifecycle offer the primary topics for discussion. It also provides a context for strategy and all the efforts inside a CMS. Best of all, the lifecycle focuses on content, not tools ad that's where strategy is strongest.
Let us know what you decide!
Mollye
Mollye Barrett | ClearPath, LLC
Skype: mollyebarrett
Rachel
Feb 2, 2012, 5:35:20 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Hi Karen,
I'm highly interested in this workshop and the requests so far are in line with what I'd like to see covered. When is the workshop and how much is it?
Rachel
Sent from my iPhone
Noz Urbina
Feb 3, 2012, 1:09:11 AM2/3/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I second the Lifecycle thing.
sent from an itty bitty mobile device with an annoying keyboard
Hilary Marsh
Feb 2, 2012, 9:49:44 PM2/2/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I have two more:
You'll want to make sure to address how the CMS can publish content to
multiple destinations -- the web, for sure, and also email, Facebook,
Twitter, RSS feeds, etc.
You'll want to make sure to address how the CMS can publish content to
multiple destinations -- the web, for sure, and also email, Facebook,
Twitter, RSS feeds, etc.
You may want to review/reinforce online writing tips -- for example,
there's an art to writing headlines so that they are compelling and
also clear when they're separated from the content (on landing pages,
in RSS feeds or social media channels, etc.)
Best,
Hilary
--
Hilary Marsh
312-806-7854
hil...@hilarymarsh.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/hilarymarsh
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hilarymarsh
Blog: http://online-content.blogspot.com/
Margaret Black
Feb 3, 2012, 10:05:56 AM2/3/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Ditto on the Lifecycle.
In my experience, training/teaching/introducing always works best when you start where people are--and they are already at several points in the lifecycle of content and probably ignoring or afraid of the rest.
Build on their familiarity points and show how operating with a content strategy increases efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. CMS's advantages will outweigh the disadvantages of its constraints when viewed through the lifecycle framework.
Great details given by others. This is more about delivery, buy-in, and absorption of those details.
Margaret
Joanna Pieters
Feb 6, 2012, 9:18:32 AM2/6/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Great comments from everyone. I have one further suggestion, which is rather bigger picture. I wonder if it's worth doing something that specifically articulates the potential benefits of CS and CMS to individuals, teams, and businesses/organisations. I've come across particularly writers who engage with it only under duress, rather than as something they can understand as beneficial to them. To be fair, I think it's often because no one has actually taken the time to discuss it with them, and tech tends to have a history of causing disruption. Maybe those on the workshop are already convinced, but if some have been 'sent' as part of their job, it would be doing a great service to the CS/CMS community if they could go back to their teams and businesses with a great understanding of 'what's in it for me' and a way of explaining it that gets others on side.
Frederick Faulkner IV
Feb 6, 2012, 9:39:30 PM2/6/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I'd add a few of the following if time permits. In my experience working with associations, large and small, include:
- how content strategies work for content intended for different mediums (i.e. my print pub is now online, my course materials are now online).
- when working with writers (or content authors) and developers, you want to discuss the authoring experience (mentioned before) but how that may mean you need to create very similar templates to make a KISS experience for authors.
- on the flip side you will want to cover how content authors need to be mindful of creating too much administrative overhead for the developers.
- How does a taxonomy help with the content re-purposing (not just across the site, but as mentioned, out to different mediums)
- HEADLINES....yes. I second that one. I have heard CNN writes 21 different headlines for 1 piece of content depending on where it will be published. (RSS, Web, Mobile, Widget, TV, Tablet, etc)
I'd also see if you can do something with lead generation. Content that is intended to lead to a transaction (not necessarily financial). Also think about funnels and user flows. How can you take a visitor from a social media message to a landing page, to a transaction.
Finally, success metrics. What constitues good content strategy, combined with a CMS to be successful? What analytics do you want to ensure you are measuring against?
Please share the agenda when you get something finalized. I'm sure we would all like to see how this turns out.
Thanks,
Fred
--
Frederick L. Faulkner IV
faul...@gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter: FredFaulknerIV
Chat with me on GTalk: faulknef
Read me on www.fromthe21stfloor.com
or www.accordingtofred.com
Frederick L. Faulkner IV
faul...@gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter: FredFaulknerIV
Chat with me on GTalk: faulknef
Read me on www.fromthe21stfloor.com
or www.accordingtofred.com
Noz Urbina
Feb 7, 2012, 7:46:46 AM2/7/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
If you're going to do lifecycle and multiformat you should include print on the list. Even if you don't address in depth, don't let people get bit in the butt by print.Noz - http://lessworkmoreflow.blogspot.com // @nozurbina
"I find quotations at the bottom of email signatures somewhat trite..."
"I find quotations at the bottom of email signatures somewhat trite..."
titan foresight
Feb 7, 2012, 2:43:22 PM2/7/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I am eager to discover what are the tools you use to monitor the content production especially when the website is still under construction, and the content strategy in wider range.
My question is partial as I am leading a software company which just releases such tool from modeling to deploying, and until now I don’t have identify competitors.
Best regards,
Pierre Jean
Jeri
Feb 8, 2012, 1:18:32 PM2/8/12
to Content Strategy
It may be a bit off (your) topic, but I would love to see the
importance of CMS training and coaching covered. In my experience, the
promise that "If you can use a word processor, you can use this CMS"
is misguided and leads to crap. Crappy code, crappy SEO, and
discouraged users (who think the CMS is crap). Maybe this is another
discussion.
importance of CMS training and coaching covered. In my experience, the
promise that "If you can use a word processor, you can use this CMS"
is misguided and leads to crap. Crappy code, crappy SEO, and
discouraged users (who think the CMS is crap). Maybe this is another
discussion.
Rachel Mattison
Feb 8, 2012, 2:37:46 PM2/8/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I second Jeri's comment. A workshop should offer a specific set of initiatives with executable strategies and best practices for beginner CMS users. Writers and developers may have some different objectives. Maybe it's 2 workshops.
Sheila Walsh
Feb 21, 2012, 9:36:10 AM2/21/12
to Content Strategy
James et al: I read with interest the discussion on what should be
covered in a content management workshop. You had mentioned that you
thought it was important for writers to know what to ask for in a
CMS.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. I'm on a project
now where I need to provide input in setting up a CMS, and it would be
most helpful to get some perspectives from this group.
thanks,
Sheila Walsh
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sheilawalsh
covered in a content management workshop. You had mentioned that you
thought it was important for writers to know what to ask for in a
CMS.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. I'm on a project
now where I need to provide input in setting up a CMS, and it would be
most helpful to get some perspectives from this group.
thanks,
Sheila Walsh
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sheilawalsh
Jake DiMare
Feb 21, 2012, 9:59:32 AM2/21/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
This is a really valuable conversation. I am a part time writer and a full time project manager on enterprise CMS engagements (with a background in development).
You would think this perspective on both sides of the conversation gives me some special insight but I find it is easy for me to get slip into a lazy and selfish "why don't they (content contributors/editors) just get it?" mentality. However, this attitude is not in my best interests as a project manager, a writer or a human being.
Sheila, what I would like to suggest is this: At the bare minimum you request the project manager and another person on the CMS implementation team literally sits with you and watches what your current process/workflow looks like. The other person may have different titles but they are essentially an expert on the CMS platform you are moving into and information architecture/user experience architecture.
I have found this is the quickest, best way for my team to understand what the content contributors/editors are working with. When this takes place you should be prepared to share what you like and dislike about the current system, what you would change, what must stay the same and all the little 'secrets' about your system only you and your team could possibly ever hope to understand.
I hope this is helpful. I'd be interested in hearing how it turns out...This sounds like a great story for me to round out and publish myself.
Hilary Marsh
Feb 21, 2012, 10:39:28 AM2/21/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I have some very concrete, specific things that writers should ask for in a CMS:
That's all I can think of at the moment. Hope this helps!
Best,
Hilary
- The ability to see a true preview of what the content will look like as published, as well as the ability to send that preview to managers and other stakeholders who are not willing to log into the CMS
- The ability to modify templates -- for example, renaming fields, adding fields, or changing parameters such as character counts -- without breaking the system. This is especially true in the first months of using the CMS. For example, you may find that a single headline or summary field isn't serving your needs sufficiently, so that you need more than one.
- The ability to hit the "publish" button and have content go live. This might sound like a no-brainer, but in the CMS I used at my last position (IBM WebSphere), only IT could publish content.
- A WYSIWYG editor that really works and doesn't crash users' computers. Again, this sounds obvious but it wasn't the case with our previous CMS. (Optimally, this WYSIWYG editor will let users paste in Word content and strip out extraneous code, but I'm not sure that's possible yet.)
- Writer-centric training materials. Vendors don't provide it, and most outside trainers also approach CMS training from a technical perspective, so it's most effective for someone who truly understands the content to develop the training materials. (Also, good support for writers when they have questions.)
- The ability to get good reports from the system -- e.g., how many PDFs there are, what content was updated in the last month, what's set to expire in the next 30 days.
- The ability to rewrite the notification emails that let folks know their content-related tasks.
That's all I can think of at the moment. Hope this helps!
Best,
Hilary
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Sheila Walsh <dcweb...@gmail.com> wrote:
James et al: I read with interest the discussion on what should be
covered in a content management workshop. You had mentioned that you
thought it was important for writers to know what to ask for in a
CMS.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. I'm on a project
now where I need to provide input in setting up a CMS, and it would be
most helpful to get some perspectives from this group.
thanks,
Sheila Walsh
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sheilawalsh
--
Hilary Marsh
312-806-7854
hil...@hilarymarsh.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/hilarymarsh
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hilarymarsh
Blog: http://online-content.blogspot.com/
Pinterest: http://www.pinterest.com/hilarymarshHilary Marsh
312-806-7854
hil...@hilarymarsh.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/hilarymarsh
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hilarymarsh
Blog: http://online-content.blogspot.com/
Emily Johnson
Feb 21, 2012, 11:35:20 AM2/21/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I work at an online advertising technology platform that was a startup until very recently. We use Confluence wiki software as our CMS, which has pluses and minuses. Pluses are that it is easy to use and modify, and the whole company can easily contribute to docs. Since our product is rapidly changing, it's very helpful to allow our services and support teams to tweak and add content in response to customer feedback. But the downside is the ability (or lack thereof) of single-sourcing tools. You can do some rudimentary text tagging and sharing, but it's cumbersome, and it's extremely difficult to repurpose text for an in-UI help system or some other use.
I'd be very interested in anyone else's take on this. . . I've often thought about switching to a more traditional XML system, but I don't personally have a lot of experience there so I'm wary of trading one set of dissatisfactions for another.
Cheers!
Emily
Hilary Marsh
Feb 21, 2012, 11:52:52 AM2/21/12
to Content Strategy
(I sent this via email earlier today but don't see it on the group, so
I'm reposting through the website -- sorry if it comes through twice!)
I have some very concrete, specific things that writers should ask for
in a CMS:
- The ability to see a true preview of what the content will look like
I'm reposting through the website -- sorry if it comes through twice!)
I have some very concrete, specific things that writers should ask for
in a CMS:
- The ability to see a true preview of what the content will look like
as published, as well as the ability to send that preview to managers
and other stakeholders who are not willing to log into the CMS
- The ability to modify templates -- for example, renaming fields,
and other stakeholders who are not willing to log into the CMS
adding fields, or changing parameters such as character counts --
without breaking the system. This is especially true in the first
months of using the CMS. For example, you may find that a single
headline or summary field isn't serving your needs sufficiently, so
that you need more than one.
- The ability to hit the "publish" button and have content go live.
without breaking the system. This is especially true in the first
months of using the CMS. For example, you may find that a single
headline or summary field isn't serving your needs sufficiently, so
that you need more than one.
This might sound like a no-brainer, but in the CMS I used at my last
position (IBM WebSphere), only IT could publish content.
- A WYSIWYG editor that really works and doesn't crash users'
position (IBM WebSphere), only IT could publish content.
computers. Again, this sounds obvious but it wasn't the case with our
previous CMS. (Optimally, this WYSIWYG editor will let users paste in
Word content and strip out extraneous code, but I'm not sure that's
possible yet.)
- Writer-centric training materials. Vendors don't provide it, and
previous CMS. (Optimally, this WYSIWYG editor will let users paste in
Word content and strip out extraneous code, but I'm not sure that's
possible yet.)
most outside trainers also approach CMS training from a technical
perspective, so it's most effective for someone who truly understands
the content to develop the training materials. (Also, good support for
writers when they have questions.)
- The ability to get good reports from the system -- e.g., how many
perspective, so it's most effective for someone who truly understands
the content to develop the training materials. (Also, good support for
writers when they have questions.)
PDFs there are, what content was updated in the last month, what's set
to expire in the next 30 days.
- The ability to rewrite the notification emails that let folks know
to expire in the next 30 days.
their content-related tasks.
That's all I can think of at the moment. Hope this helps!
Best,
Hilary
That's all I can think of at the moment. Hope this helps!
Best,
Hilary
Karen McGrane
Feb 21, 2012, 12:10:28 PM2/21/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
My main focus right now is on content strategy for mobile, and particularly around how our publishing processes, workflows, and CMS tools will need to adapt to support a multi-device future. With mobile usage increasing, and a wide range of screen sizes and device capabilities available, our content processes will have to evolve to keep up.
A couple notes about this excellent list:
_ Totally, completely agree that writers need to be able to add fields or change things like character counts. This will become ever more important as content that fits nicely on a desktop will get truncated on mobile. Writing multiple versions of things like headlines or summaries will be required.
_ Which leads me to my second point... the concept of "preview" is about to get very, very broken. What does "preview" mean when you have a website, a mobile website, an iOS app, an Android app, all of which might render somewhat differently on various browsers and devices? I don't have a good answer yet, but I do believe we have a responsibility to remind stakeholders that the desktop website isn't all there is. See this reference from Talking Points Memo: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/mobile_revolution.php
_ Agreed that editors should be able to use WYSIWYG for standard markup elements (emphasis, lists, blockquotes, etc.) But be careful with WYSIWYG that allows editors to "design" their own pages. Decisions about fonts, colors, image layout, "sidebars", etc need to be handled at the display level, not in a blob of content stored in the CMS. What looks swell if you're thinking only about the context of the desktop web will be a nightmare when you try to get it to mobile.
In short, the CMS should be gathering clean, well-structured content, that is written flexibly for reuse across platforms.
Paola Roccuzzo
Feb 21, 2012, 12:29:49 PM2/21/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
I have to disagree with the initial request: I do not think that writers should ask anything from a CMS, unless they also have content management skills, or unless their requests can be filtered and captured in a wider context by an analyst (a content strategist, a BA, or both).
CMSs have become complex systems covering a wide array of functionalities, and requiring compex skillsets; writing/editing is just a portion of them.
IMHO, this applies to every context, even the small company publishing a website with Wordpress (well, in that case you want a content manager, writer, editor, strategist wrapped into one person anyway).
Paola
CMSs have become complex systems covering a wide array of functionalities, and requiring compex skillsets; writing/editing is just a portion of them.
IMHO, this applies to every context, even the small company publishing a website with Wordpress (well, in that case you want a content manager, writer, editor, strategist wrapped into one person anyway).
Paola
Sara Wachter-Boettcher
Feb 21, 2012, 11:46:46 PM2/21/12
to Content Strategy
Hi all! What a lovely, meaty topic.
I tend to agree with Karen about this subject, and I think Hilary has
a great list as well. Though I do wonder about allowing writers to
change or add fields too easily—what happens to consistency if some
content has certain fields and other content of the same type has
different fields? If we base rules for where content gets published
and how it is displayed off of content attributes and metadata, then
we need to be as consistent as possible about what's entered in the
first place. I'm sure neither of you meant that anyone with a CMS
login should be able to adjust fields and length limits at will, but
it's worth stressing that changes to content models have implications
down the line, and the ramifications of those choices (including what
it will take to go back and update legacy stuff to match the new
model) should probably be evaluated by someone thinking holistically/
structurally/systematically about the content and its relationships.
Making those choices ad hoc sounds disastrous.
Paola, I would agree that writers shouldn't drive all CMS decisions,
but I disagree with the notion that they shouldn't be *consulted* or
that their needs aren't important. CMS users are just that: users.
When the CMS is doesn't make sense to them or doesn't do what they
need, they get frustrated, give up, or make errors—just like any other
website user. People deserve appropriate tools to do their jobs. Now,
I think writers and editors could also definitely use training about
how to think about their content differently and make the most of
their tools. But that doesn't negate the need for the people using the
tool to be consulted about what they need in a tool.
Speaking of training, I wholeheartedly agree about the need for CMS
training from the writer's perspective. One thing I worked on (though
never perfected) at my old agency was partnering a content person with
a technical person to do CMS training, so we could speak to both
sides. I think one reason CMSes are so frustrating for their users is
that they aren't given information in a way they can relate to—a way
that maps back to their jobs, priorities, and goals. These people care
about the content (at least, we hope). If we can show them how doing
things in a certain way may seem odd at first, but will make the
content they produce look and work better, they'll happily do it. In
other words: if a writer cares about content quality, then they just
need to see how the *structural* quality of the content affects how it
is perceived and whether it engages and informs and does all that
touchy-feely stuff. But you've got to put it in those terms, and
that's not something your database person is likely to do.
Whew. I hope you all aren't tired of talking about this, because I
would LOVE to get some insight from this group about issues with
content structure/modularization/workflow for a book I'm working on
(Content Everywhere, from Rosenfeld - rosenfeldmedia.com/books/content-
everywhere/). I was thinking of putting together a survey of some
sort, so I do hope a bug chunk of you will participate.
Cheers,
Sara
I tend to agree with Karen about this subject, and I think Hilary has
a great list as well. Though I do wonder about allowing writers to
change or add fields too easily—what happens to consistency if some
content has certain fields and other content of the same type has
different fields? If we base rules for where content gets published
and how it is displayed off of content attributes and metadata, then
we need to be as consistent as possible about what's entered in the
first place. I'm sure neither of you meant that anyone with a CMS
login should be able to adjust fields and length limits at will, but
it's worth stressing that changes to content models have implications
down the line, and the ramifications of those choices (including what
it will take to go back and update legacy stuff to match the new
model) should probably be evaluated by someone thinking holistically/
structurally/systematically about the content and its relationships.
Making those choices ad hoc sounds disastrous.
Paola, I would agree that writers shouldn't drive all CMS decisions,
but I disagree with the notion that they shouldn't be *consulted* or
that their needs aren't important. CMS users are just that: users.
When the CMS is doesn't make sense to them or doesn't do what they
need, they get frustrated, give up, or make errors—just like any other
website user. People deserve appropriate tools to do their jobs. Now,
I think writers and editors could also definitely use training about
how to think about their content differently and make the most of
their tools. But that doesn't negate the need for the people using the
tool to be consulted about what they need in a tool.
Speaking of training, I wholeheartedly agree about the need for CMS
training from the writer's perspective. One thing I worked on (though
never perfected) at my old agency was partnering a content person with
a technical person to do CMS training, so we could speak to both
sides. I think one reason CMSes are so frustrating for their users is
that they aren't given information in a way they can relate to—a way
that maps back to their jobs, priorities, and goals. These people care
about the content (at least, we hope). If we can show them how doing
things in a certain way may seem odd at first, but will make the
content they produce look and work better, they'll happily do it. In
other words: if a writer cares about content quality, then they just
need to see how the *structural* quality of the content affects how it
is perceived and whether it engages and informs and does all that
touchy-feely stuff. But you've got to put it in those terms, and
that's not something your database person is likely to do.
Whew. I hope you all aren't tired of talking about this, because I
would LOVE to get some insight from this group about issues with
content structure/modularization/workflow for a book I'm working on
(Content Everywhere, from Rosenfeld - rosenfeldmedia.com/books/content-
everywhere/). I was thinking of putting together a survey of some
sort, so I do hope a bug chunk of you will participate.
Cheers,
Sara
Paola Roccuzzo
Feb 22, 2012, 3:15:40 AM2/22/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Hi Sara,
We are in agreement -- that is what I meant when I said that their requirements should be filtered by an anlyst.
Having dealt with users' frustrations in the past I noticed as well that the overwhelming majority of requests are about WYSIWYG plug-ins, and knowing where the content "will end up".
Without any filter these requests end up being implemented with no consideration for the concept of reuse and governance (let alone consistency). Not pretty when you are called to clean up afterwards :)
The assumption that writers are also users, though, is not always true. Depending on the company and the lifecycle, the writing phase could happen outside of a CMS. What writers need then are clear editorial guidelines for every content type.
So, to me, it always comes back to the need for at least one person who will be in charge of driving the writers' effort, either by providing mentoring on the tool (if writers are indeed users), or by enabling them with guidelines and templates.
Paola
We are in agreement -- that is what I meant when I said that their requirements should be filtered by an anlyst.
Having dealt with users' frustrations in the past I noticed as well that the overwhelming majority of requests are about WYSIWYG plug-ins, and knowing where the content "will end up".
Without any filter these requests end up being implemented with no consideration for the concept of reuse and governance (let alone consistency). Not pretty when you are called to clean up afterwards :)
The assumption that writers are also users, though, is not always true. Depending on the company and the lifecycle, the writing phase could happen outside of a CMS. What writers need then are clear editorial guidelines for every content type.
So, to me, it always comes back to the need for at least one person who will be in charge of driving the writers' effort, either by providing mentoring on the tool (if writers are indeed users), or by enabling them with guidelines and templates.
Paola
Sheila Walsh
Feb 23, 2012, 2:31:11 PM2/23/12
to Content Strategy
Wow...thanks everyone for all the thoughtful replies. Lots to mull
over.
Sheila
> > everywhere/ <http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/content-%0Aeverywhere/>). I
over.
Sheila
Eoin Kelly
Feb 28, 2012, 12:37:04 AM2/28/12
to content...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
My perspective here is as a developer who regularly sets up CMSs and teaches clients how to use them. Hillary's list contains some very good things and I thought I might be able to provide some background on "a WYSIWYG that really works", a phrase I hear regularly from clients.
What you see is what you get. Yeah, right. Anybody who has used a WYSIWYG knows that a more accurate description is "What you see is not totally unrelated to what you get.". Why are they still so bad after all these years?
The fundamental problem here is that uncertainty about layout is a design feature of the web. Read that last sentence again - it's a doozy right? WYSIWYG will never, ever work properly for the web because one of the central design pillars of HTML & CSS is uncertain layout. Madness I hear you cry! Well you wouldn't be the first. Many designers, developers and writers have spent time trying to engineer away this "madness". Lo, they came and said unto us "Make it like MS Word" and developers said unto them "Behold, the WYSIWYG!".
The whole notion of WYSIWYG makes perfect sense if you are creating a document that is destined to be frozen as a PDF or on paper. However, on the web a WYSIWYG is a thin veneer of "Word Processor" sanity over HTML+CSS. Not only does HTML+CSS not make it easy to have precise, repeatable control over layout - they deliberately make it difficult. Why? It turns out that variable layout is generally a good thing. It defers decisions about how content should be presented to devices that are closer to the end user, the assumption being that the device knows better than we do how to present the content to the user.
The good news is that the rise of mobile means that we have even less idea how our content will be presented. The only thing we can be sure of is that it will mashed, remixed, poked and prodded to fit new screens and contexts. Why is this good news? Because the futility of our attempts to engineer away the "madness" of uncertain layout comes into focus. There are real problems to be solved here we haven't solved them yet but it's clear now that WYSIWYG (beyond basic text markup) is no longer the answer.
Karen McGrane's reply is 100% on the money. Use the WYSIWYG as a convenient way to mark up basic textual elements and forget that despicable lie you were told about it allowing you to control anything else.
Thanks for your time.
/Eoin/
Eoin Kelly :: http://www.eoinkelly.info :: @eoinkelly :: Flickr
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages