Thoughts On The Peoplecentric Web

July 09, 2004 | 12 Comments

You may have heard the term “people-centric Web” here before. It’s something I’ve been talking about, and well, it’s just something I believe in when it comes to technology.

It’s much like user-centric, but it’s bigger than that. It’s more inclusive and takes into account more than just “the user”.

Over the last few nights I’ve been preparing for a presentation I’ve got to give next week. The main theme of that presentation is “What’s Next?” for the Web and Web design. I’ve been looking at that question in two ways, literally and the theoretically and while I’m not going to give anything away right now, I wanted to throw out the term “Peoplecentric Web” and see what you all think about it.

I’m still mulling it over and it’s really just a philosophical idea anyway, so take it with a grain of salt.

What is The Peoplecentric Web?

To me The Peoplecentric Web encapsulates the idea that the Web is about people. People use it. People create it. Sure the Web is also about technology, techniques, standards and all the rest and Web professionals have a tendency to de-humanize it.

Look at terms like “Content Management” — this is often associated with a technology when it really should be associated with a people driven process. If you think on it there are quite a few terms like this.

It’s hard not to get caught up in this kind of thinking. I used to work for Boeing. I know all about thinking of people as cogs in the machine. In my opinion this is not very beneficial to anyone in the end.

At the end of the day, without people there is no point in having the Web. All the goals we have for our sites and applications are driven by a person, whether it’s our users, folks in our marketing department or our CEOs. The Web needs people.

On the end-user side The Peoplecentric Web is about using Web technology to enable people to connect with each other, have an easier time doing tasks, be entertained, get educated, etc. and doing it all in such a way that they only spend as much time “using” as they need or want. It’s all inclusive, making sites as accessible and usable as possible for as wide an audience as possible given the goals of a particular site.

On the Web Professional side The Peoplecentric Web is about not relying on technology to do the job a person should do. It’s recognizing where we can leverage technology to help ourselves, ad value to our sites and make the end-users (and hopefully our own) lives easier. It’s about having tools that allow us to be creative and put more focus on, you guessed it, people, as opposed to focusing on things like standards, validation and the latest CSS hack.

I guess what it boils down to is that it’s about making the Web work for us. Not the other way around.

Filed under: Web General

Comments

1. John Zeratsky said:

Keith, this is a very helpful extension of user-centric web design. In many ways, it echoes what 37signals is trying to do by not using the word “users.” Users are people, and this is not a tough jump to make.

Your production-side angle is totally great, though. Some jobs (content management) are better done by hiring a talented person than by spending thousands on a CMS. One of my clients is preparing to spend $10k-15k on a CMS that they hope will do everything – totally customized to address each bit of content on their site and easy enough for anyone in their organization to use. This is a pipe dream, and a mistake. Technology such as a CMS is best as simple, powerful tools that can be used to streamline tasks done by a competent web professional. It’s no good as a sprawling, content specific tool that needs to be re-engineered for every change in site structure.

This isn’t protectionism on our part (although some will say that) – it’s just an overdue focus on people that will make the web better all around.

Posted on July 9, 2004 11:51 AM | #

2. Jonathan Snook said:

I wholeheartedly agree. Companies like 37signals are demonstrating just how much sense it makes to design for people. It’s a strategy I try to take to heart when I put together a web application.

Posted on July 9, 2004 11:52 AM | #

3. Keith said:

Well to be honest, and to give credit where it’s due:

This idea was in part seeded by guys like Jason Fried (37signals) and Jeff Veen (Adaptive Path) – they, and others, helped me come to some conclusions that I’ve been thinking about for quite awhile.

Posted on July 9, 2004 11:59 AM | #

4. Jonathan Snook said:

Sorry to go off topic but I wanted to address John’s comment (#1) that seems to be directed at CMS tools in general.

You make a valid point in that content management is best handled by talented individuals who have a better sense of the direction of the web site and its messaging than the average person within an organization. And true, a CMS tool cannot replace that expertise.

What a good CMS tool can do, however, is automate and offload a great deal of the mundane creation and maintenance issues in managing a web site – the kind of stuff a content manager shouldn’t have to worry about. The workflow process with the CMS can ensure that a “content manager” is required to review, revise and approve all content before it appears on the site. Also, a good CMS should allow site restructuring without needing to retool the application.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming… :)

Posted on July 9, 2004 12:17 PM | #

5. John Zeratsky said:

Jonathan: You are absolutely right about what a good CMS should do, and they are indeed very useful when coupled with a capable person.

My rant was about something different, though – the idea that by investing in a CMS, an organization can bypass “web people” and hand all of the content creation/editing/maintenance to a variety of staff members throughout the organization. This (if possible) would require a CMS that was engineered specifically for each bit of content currently being published, effectively requiring retooling to be done before any major site changes can be made.

Posted on July 9, 2004 12:39 PM | #

6. Andrew said:

Well, not to rain on the parade here, but exactly what conclusions are you talking about? Beyond the touchy-feely simplification of the usal user-centered design principles, what exactly are you talking about?

Are you arguing that the vocabulary we use (“users”) tends to dehumanize some specific process or product to its detriment?

Are you arguing for new design or development methods that could somehow derive better requirements or results from a focus on “people”? What would those methods be, exactly?

By simply placing an adjective–“People-centric”–in front of the noun “Web”, you are describing the technology itself. If you’re referring to people and behavior, you’re entering the realm of anthropology, not design.

Posted on July 9, 2004 12:41 PM | #

7. Keith said:

Johnathan (#4) – Is there such thing as a good CMS? If so please point me in the right direction. ;)

John (#5) – I was going to back you up, but you did it yourself.

Andrew (#6) – There’s always someone who needs to over-complicate things. Not that I think you’re doing that intentionally…or are you? Maybe I don’t exactly get where you are coming from…?

To address your questions. I think “users” is a fine term, but it doesn’t address the needs of those who work for the users. Designers, etc.

I think we de-humanize things by calling content management a technology when it’s a people driven process. The technology is a Content Management system – I’m always surprised at how people refer to these things as being one and the same.

I am arguing for new design and development methods that take the focus off of tools and put them on the people that use the tools. The Web is a tool of a sort.

As to what those methods are – that’s what we need to figure out. Part of what I see here is bringing the users together directly with designers. Designers very rarely have contact with actual users in my opinion. That could be a start…

In away I am describing the technology itself. I hope that helps, like I said, it’s just and idea…

Posted on July 9, 2004 01:04 PM | #

8. Andrew said:

There are some great books on treating Content Management as first a people-centric process and second as a technology issue. Diane Hackos’ “Content Management for Dynamic Web Delivery” (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471085863/) makes many of your points in chapters-length detail.

Posted on July 9, 2004 01:43 PM | #

9. Chris Vincent said:

The first thing that came to mind when I read “Peoplecentric Web” was the user-run documentation at the official PHP site. It has “people” of a common interest working together to make the documentation better. It’s like taking a community forum and putting it in the most useful, organized location possible.

Is this the sort of thing you’re talking about?

Posted on July 9, 2004 02:44 PM | #

10. Keith said:

Andrew – Thanks for the tip.

Chris – Well, that would be part of it. But it’s less specific than that really. It’s a simple idea – or so I thought – the Web and technology are about people. Yep. That’s pretty much it.

Maybe it’s an idea that’s too simple? ;)

Posted on July 9, 2004 02:51 PM | #

11. Michael Watts said:

Content Management Systems are most definately incorrectly named. ‘System’ is all inclusive, it covers the hardware, software, people and processes. Pretty much everything I’ve seen wandering around calling itself a CMS is nothing but the software layer, by itself its useless, it needs the harware, people and processes (some may say the processes are part of the software - partially true as only some are) in order to function as a system.

If people started using the term Content Management Tool for the software layer I think it could go a long way to creating a better understanding of what the actual system really involves.

My 2c

*The above may be pointless rabble*

Posted on July 9, 2004 08:41 PM | #