DoingMedia

I have been reading A List Apart since it was an actual listserv. It is a great resource, nay, one of the best resources, for user experience, user centered design, information architecture and web standard coding information.

In mid-December 2008 they ran a couple of articles/posts on what they referred to as “content strategy.” I wrote a couple of lengthy comments on both.

Step 1, Step 2…

The gist of  “The Discipline of Content Strategy” was that content always seems to go last in a website project and often the wrong person does it. And that the role of content strategist needs a clearer and more respected definition. I don’t disagree with any of that really. People involved in content “strategy” and creation deserve respect for their skills. But the post seemed to continue the current website creation practice of placing content after IA and design.

That I have a problem with. Website creation starts with the audience — who is the site for? Next is objective and goals — what defines success and what do you want the audience to know, do or feel after they visit the site. Next is the content that will carry the message to achieve the objective and goals. Only then can you execute a design. Otherwise you just have a bunch of shapes and colors arranged in a pleasing manner.

Another point made was that one person can’t know it all. I’d contend that if you don’t know enough about the different roles in the process then you can’t be effective. And that the Renaissance person is possible.

Hello, I am a Content Strategist

In the  “Content-ious Strategy” post the author described where content occurred in the process of a website execution. He even included a link to a cocktail napkin drawing showing where content strategy fit in the website design process. His main point I think was to describe who should be doing content strategy. He (rightly) determined that information architects, content analysts (library science specialists) and subject matter experts were not appropriate content strategists. And especially not project managers. So he created  a new role, content strategist.

Enough with the new roles already! Website creation professionals seem to think that nothing else is like website creation. And it often seems that IA, UX, UCD and now content strategy professionals have a kind of duality complex. They feel inferior because they never seem to get their due respect for the expertise they have. And they feel superior because their role in the creation process is most important. And they are all missing the point. It is a team effort. And every team member has a role that is vital to the success of the project.

Wheel Reinvention

Most of my comment referred to the successful model of film and video production. Nearly a century in the making, the model of producer, director, writer, cameraman, etc. has worked. But the website creation business, like the multimedia business before it, seems to feel that their business has no equivalent. I think that must be because of the roots in software development. The role that is really missing is that of producer. Project managers are not producers. They manage projects. Producers lead the creative team. They do the upfront analysis, define the initial content and creative vision, and then assemble the team of experts to execute it. I think the contention about content strategy is that so many people claim all or a piece of that producer-type role: account execs, PMs, IAs, user experience people, coders and now content strategists. Why not just create the role of Producer and be done with it? The ideal team for a website project, in my opinion, would be, in order of hierarchy: producer; creative director and writer; technical director; project manager, graphic artist; and coder.