Usable Content Manifesto

July 13, 2005 | 21 Comments

Much of my recent work has been spent right in the center of where strategy and tactics meet. I’m smack dab in the middle of a grey area surrounded by branding, content development, information organization, usability and design.

One of the things I’ve spent much of my time working with is content, mainly the written variety. How it’s structured, how it’s delivered, and how it’s designed. As I’ve talked about recently, content is the hardest part of the projects I work on. It’s also the most important. Without it your left with a hallow shell that is ultimately meaningless. For some reason, when it comes to the Web anyway, there is a whole lot of time and effort spent on branding and marketing and design and very little spent on those things that, in my mind anyway, are much more important — content, accessibility, customer relationship.

The Web allows people much more access to intellectual property online. Now more than ever companies need to worry about what they are saying online. But it seems they still don’t get it.

I see a sore need for what I’ll call “usable content.” I thought I’d take a moment and let y’all know what I think usable content is, and what I think it isn’t. Of course, this is pretty general and content needs to be tailored to your goals and audience. Take this with a grain of salt.

What Usable Content Is

Usable content is clear and easy to understand.
Usable content can bridge gaps—things like language barriers, disability and cultural differences.
Usable content is meaningful.
Usable content makes the reader feel smart.
Usable content is goal and audience appropriate.
It’s thought-out, planned and constantly maintained.
It’s fresh, light and lively.
It’s content that is organized in a way that people understand and can get their mind around.
It’s designed to be accessible.
It’s reusable and shareable, readily available and easy to locate.
It’s straightforward, open and honest and to the point.
It encourages feedback and is engineered for conversation.
It’s hard work, but worthy of the job.

What Usable Content Is Not

Usable content is not clever, obtuse or misleading.
It’s not marketing drivel, or bland branding messages.
It’s not longwinded.
It’s not written at the highest possible reading level.
It’s doesn’t use “big words” unless they are needed.
It’s not legalese.
It’s not double talk.
It’s not an afterthought.
It’s not a mission statement.
It’s not an org chart.
It’s not self-centered.

What do you think content should be? What exemplifies good Web content to you?

Filed under: Content
Keyword Tags: content usability user+experience

Comments

1. Tim Boyd said:

In my experience, sites that focus on “Brand!” or “Marketing!” almost always match every single item you listed in the “What Usable Content Is Not” column.

I’ve been involved in a LOT of projects that are defined by brand managers and marketers, and they’re always just a trainwreck, ending up completely useless and of little or no value to users. Because, newsflash, people don’t care about “Brand!”

Posted on July 13, 2005 09:41 AM | #

2. Bob said:

Good stuff, Keith. You might want to consider condensing the first list down a bit – there are a few items that essentially repeat others. And after all, content also should not be repetitive or say the same things over and over. ;-)

Posted on July 13, 2005 10:07 AM | #

3. Keith said:

Tim – People don’t care about brand in the way most people think they do. Especially on the Web.

Bob – I trimmed some of them. However, I see each on as a seperate (yet related) idea. It doesn’t seem too repetitive to me.

Posted on July 13, 2005 10:17 AM | #

4. Taughnee said:

Hmmm. I’ve always read/heard that higher reading levels are better for web writing. That users “skim and scan” web pages looking to grasp what’s going on as fast as possible. Same reason why bullet points, bolded subheads, etc. make web reading easier.

So, given that “big words” convey more meaning than a bunch of smaller, lower-level words … they actually help the “skimmer” pick up on the message much easier.

I could be wrong, but just something to consider. :)

Posted on July 13, 2005 12:42 PM | #

5. Tim Boyd said:

Keith, I’m interested in hearing what your take is on the value users place upon brand, on the web. I can think of cases where it adds context or credibility to content. Many times though I’ve been involved with brand for brand’s sake, and I’m not convinced anyone cares about that at all.

Posted on July 13, 2005 12:43 PM | #

6. Keith said:

Taughnee – I’m interested to know where you’ve read/heard that. From my experience the less complicated you can make it, the easier it is to digest. But I’d be willing to entertain an opposite argument…This list comes from my experience and I certainly don’t know it all. ;0)

Tim – I think brand is very important and I think users do see a value there. However I think that when it comes to the Web what makes or breaks your brand are perhaps different than what you’d normally think. Users value getting what they are looking for and getting tasks done. They also value feeling like they are part of something, that they can connect with a brand.

It’s a big topic, but quickly:

* A strong visual brand can enhance credibility. No doubt.
* Poor content or usability can really damage your brand. People will have a strong negative reaction to a poor experience that can override any affinity they’ve established with a brand.
* Clear, personal content can do a whole lot to bring people closer to a brand. The Web is the perfect venue for this.
* Branding online is about experience. It’s content, design, etc. all working in harmony to create a great experience. You need to hit all of these things to do it right.

Posted on July 13, 2005 01:10 PM | #

7. Tony said:

Taughnee,
Your conclusion about using big words to aid in scanning a page is essential opposite of what my understanding of the conventional wisdom is regarding any kind of writing.

I would think that similar rules apply to web writing as to news writing, so you may want to look up some resources on that style – if you are really interested in improving your own writing for the web.

Some of the basics include putting the most important information closest to the top (that’s called “inverted pyramid”), using small paragraphs to increase whitespace (and therefore readability), and give the reader a reason to want to follow your article through the jump (or a “read more” link on a web site).

And, of course, writing well is very important.

Posted on July 13, 2005 01:28 PM | #

8. Sheldon Kotyk said:

Useable Content is content that the reader/viewer can use. If the viewer is wasting their time reading it, it isn’t useable anymore. So usable content can actually be some of the “not” list if it is an intranet and we needed that org chart, or if on a site for English Masters students that can read at the highest level.

Like any list of do’s and don’ts context is everything.

Posted on July 13, 2005 02:42 PM | #

9. Sheldon Kotyk said:

Now I read the bottom paragraph of your original post and realize you already said what I said. Ignore me.

Posted on July 13, 2005 02:43 PM | #

10. Kev said:

Your ‘is’ list also ticks several accessibility boxes, especially the first list item. Lots of web designers who care about accessibility have yet to grasp the fact that approaching 30% of people with disabilities have a cognitive disability - a much higher percentage than those that have a visual disability - and that the use of clear language is vital in this respect.

Posted on July 14, 2005 01:18 AM | #

11. Ben Eastaugh said:

I have to agree with Taughnee to an extent. Technical words, with specific meanings, are created because they can convey complex concepts with greater brevity and near-universal understanding within their proper domain. The issue here is that with the web, what the proper domain is is not so immediately apparent.

If I were reading a philosophy journal I would anticipate technical language of the type common to philosophers. If I were reading an engineering journal, the same thing would apply, but it would be a different language, and I doubt I would understand it as easily as an engineer. A linguistic community creates terminology to facilitate communication.

However, as I say, it is not as clear what the proper domain of a document is when it’s on the web. Writing good content therefore entails not only writing well, and writing for one’s audience, but understanding the context within which one is writing and communicating that to anyone who happens to come across the document.

Posted on July 14, 2005 04:39 AM | #

12. Tony said:

Ben,
There’s a word for what you are describing: “jargon.” And, unless you are writing for a specific audience that you know will understand that jargon, you should avoid it. However, I do think this is accounted for in Keith’s post, but he was also writing it as broadly as possible without directly addressing those specific situations.

Posted on July 14, 2005 06:12 AM | #

13. Ben Eastaugh said:

The fact is, however, that an awful lot of stuff is written not for everyone, but for a specific set of people. The difficulty the rest of us may have in reading such content is (for the authors) a secondary concern to communicating what they need to to their core audience. It’s all very well talking idealistically about usable content, but we must surely face the fact that making content readable for everyone is not the primary goal of many content authors.

As a designer, I do my best to work with clients to rewrite their content to improve its readability and accessibility to everyone, because I think that this approach is both the right thing to do, and also that it will be beneficial to them. However, in doing so I have to take account of the fact that very often, the client is most concerned with conveying some quite technical information to people who will understand the terms employed. While I agree that we should, all else being equal, make our content as accessible and well-written as possible, real-world contstraints often work to hamper this laudable goal. To simply discuss what we think ought to be in a pie-in-the-sky fashion will not solve the real problems caused by highly technical content. I believe, however, that a more pragmatic approach can have an impact: namely, to include summaries and contextual information, so as to make a reader aware that what may at first glance appear an incomprehensible piece of writing is being pitched to a certain subset of the larger linguistic community, and members of that subset will parse the content in question very differently to a layman.

Another problem which must be addressed is the appalling but widely-held belief that the more unreadable and jargonistic a piece of writing is, the better or more worthy it is. Particular linguistic communities sometimes create jargon (probably not consciously) to reinforce the sense of belonging. If you can understand the technical language, you’re in the club; if you can’t, keep out! This may be to hoard expertise, or it may be a filtering mechanism to ensure that only those who really understand something can make headway in the business. However, whatever the underlying reasons, it is a problem, and it needs a solution that does not simply involve us telling these people that they are wrong, and that they ought to write more clearly.

Ultimately, I don’t disagree with Keith and other advocates of better, clearer writing. Far from it! However, I think we have to recognise that the situation is a complex one, and not merely a matter of evangelising. I believe that there are legitimate scenarios where “usable content” is not the most important thing; if I had to explain what half the words meant next time I wrote a philosophy essay, I wouldn’t have any time to write the essay itself!

Posted on July 14, 2005 06:43 AM | #

14. Arnholdt said:

On the Web, the medium is NOT the message.

Posted on July 14, 2005 08:07 AM | #

15. Keith said:

Ben – You’re saying that content should always been audience appropriate? If that’s what you’re getting at, I totally agree. Having said that, and don’t take this the wrong way, I had a heck of a time reading and teasing out the message in your comment. Kind of proves my point to a certain degree. ;0)

Posted on July 14, 2005 08:38 AM | #

16. Ben Eastaugh said:

I was trying to say a whole bunch of things (whether I suceeded… well, you be the judge), but that was one of them, yes. The other big one was this: we should write content so that it’s appropriate to its target audience but we shouldn’t forget that other people will probably end up viewing that content too. People whom we didn’t anticipate wanting to read this stuff.

We should be trying to ensure that documents which aren’t written for the majority of people out there include enough contextual information. That way, the people who we didn’t anticipate reading the content in question (but who, apparently, want to) can glean more of the information being presented than they otherwise would be able to.

However, doing this shouldn’t distract us from the fact that sometimes we do write for a specific, technical audience. As a result of doing so, readability is often decreased for members of the general public. There is, ultimately, nothing wrong with this–so long as we take the step mentioned above.

Posted on July 14, 2005 09:41 AM | #

17. Keith said:

Ben – I gotcha. I used to work for a children’s hospital and the type of content you’re talking about is like what we put in the more clinical sections of our sites. This stuff was written by MDs for MDs, BUT, we had to acknowledge that patients and parents of patients were very interested in this stuff and would get in there and read it. Often before they’d read the content that was specifically written for them.

Still, having said that, Plain English could have helped some of that clinical content as well.

Posted on July 14, 2005 09:51 AM | #

18. jekyll said:

Like Ben I agree that usable content should not necessarily be audience appropriate. There are plenty of times when content should be accessible by all audiences.

Too often overlooked is providing content for varying levels of reading comprehension, familiarity, reading/comprehension speed, scope, etc.

Of course, time plays an important role in providing all that.

I am sorry for the length of my letter, but I had not the time to write a short one. – Blaise Pascal

Think about that.

What hacks me off most about content is the so-called word count limitation. Word counts are often used to pay writers, which is crap, but moreso it is a holdover from the print world.

Why there is even a word count for the web is beyond me (and my idealism). I cannot stand reading a web-only article in which the writer specifically discusses s/he’d like to cover more but s/he is already at the word count. Hey, I know, throw your thoughts in there as an addendum.

A writer – especially a web writer – should write until s/he is satisfied it’s all out there. Then write the piece to fit the “word count”. Give both to the editor. Edit* and publish both on the web. And hey, why not hire interns to add a summary, an abstract, an executive summary, and a table of contents? Why articles are at least not hyperlink-outlined is another thing that irritates me so. And why not a historical abstract, too? News websites could do more than providing links to past articles of the same story.

*Yeah, right. Unless it is a novel, writers are editing there own stuff more and more. Sigh.

What I expected of the web was for content-production to be treated differently. Sure, people produce better content when they take the time to write succinctly. But sometimes there are people who benefit from the length, repetition, breadth, etc. If the content’s lengthier draft is available, provide it. Think of the target audience 1, target audience 2, etc.

Too bad I was naive in thinking anybody would ever spend money and/or time to provide the same content for multiple audiences or requirements. Which is what marketing should focus on when they are trying to promote growth. Marketing should be pushing multiple content accessibility. Of course, after the finance guys run the cost-benefit (payoff) analysis, I may feel differently.

I am sorry for the length of my post, but I had not the time to write a short one. ;)

Sorry, I ended up addressing (ranting about) word counts more than I did in discussing multiple types of access to “one” piece of produced content. (Mirror, self. Self, mirror.)

Anyway, carry on.

Take the time to write succinctly. But don’t limit yourself. Last I heard an extra K or six will not break a hard drive.

Posted on July 14, 2005 02:28 PM | #

19. Jamin said:

Keith,

In comment #6 you say:

Poor content or usability can really damage your brand. People will have a strong negative reaction to a poor experience that can override any affinity they’ve established with a brand.

This is exactly why I just cancelled my Dreamhost service. I had seen many design and usability sites recommend their service. So I was surprised to see such poor content, design, and organization on their site. The affinity for the Dreamhost brand that was created by all the recommendations from sites I respect was negated by the reaction to the poor experience.

Is it just me? Or do you think users are able to overlook content and usability flaws under certain circumstances?

Posted on July 15, 2005 09:44 AM | #

20. Ben Eastaugh said:

Something that’s struck me since I started thinking about this issue is this: (universal) readability is sometimes the enemy of precision. There’s nothing new in what I say below, even to this discussion, but I think it’s a point worth restating and clarifying.

Usually, we think of precise language as also being clear language. Something that is well written provides maximum explanation for a minumum effort on the part of the reader. However, when it comes to technical language, this is often not the case.

A technical term can be very precise, but its meaning is often opaque to the lay person. Perhaps a more accurate way to reframe what I said in the previous paragraph would be, “Clarity is highly context-dependent.” Something that is clear to one person, with a certain understanding of a given technical language (a doctor or engineer, for example) will be utterly mystifying to someone who does not possess this understanding.

Consequently, making a document readable for everyone can render the ideas expressed therein imprecise. Conversely, making a document precise can sometimes make it unclear to many potential readers.

Posted on July 16, 2005 04:43 AM | #

21. Bob said:

@Jamin: Ask yourself this question: was your Dreamhost experience tarnished by the fact that their web site is not particularly useable, or was it their hosting service itself (i.e., servers, support, etc.) that you had a problem with? I think you may be confusing the message that so many design and usability supporters were sending. The ones I know recommend DH for their service and support, not for their marketing site.

Posted on July 25, 2005 10:37 AM | #