Author Archive

My partner, Dennis, has been known to say, “James, I can read you like a pamphlet.”

I know this is his thinly veiled way of saying “James, I’ve got your number — and it’s a fraction”. But I can’t help imagining exactly what kind of pamphlet he’s really envisioning.

Am I one of those Dr. office tomes on cholesterol? Or, am I some “mouse type” factsheet slyly slipped into the envelope with my credit card statement? Or am I more like a CliffsNotes version of a literary classic?

As an Information Architect, I really hope it’s the later. In my daily work I try to help end-users find the simplest, fastest, most-meaningful route to the desired solution or task at hand. However, the sad truth is that the Information Architecture (IA) process is anything but straightforward. Sometimes I worry people think I’m too long-winded when it comes to questioning their motives. I just can’t shake this [almost lawyer-ly] need to ask stakeholders the same questions over and over, and from every angle. But it’s all in the best interest of their client – an ultimate desire to arrive at a simple truth. What’s it going to take to get their Website client to do “x” – and is that solution [ultimately] worth everyone’s while?

Maybe Dennis’ observation couldn’t be further from the truth. Maybe I actually read more like a voluminous, lumbering law journal.

But before you think I consider myself the “Great American Novel,” why not ask yourself “What kind of book am I?”

The Internet is the ultimate playground for self-awareness quizzes delivered in a light-hearted way. And who doesn’t love the chance to query a quick online wizard for an answer to that most important question: “So what do you think about ME?” As a typical person, I’m really interested in the self-voyering that the Internet can offer. As an IA, I find that many of these Web quizzes are well done (as long as you keep in mind they’re really “for entertainment only”).

So what about you? Here’s a short list of quick, fun online personality quizzes designed to tell you what type animal, book, state, or even locomotive you might be.

As for me, the next time Dennis says “I can read you like a pamphlet,” I can honestly say “No… I’m more like The Grapes of Wrath.”

Only weeks after launching one of their most creative, exciting, and personalizing viral marketing stunts – that last one highlighting their  “What are you Celebrating?” campaign –  Disney is again turning to viral marketing to stir interest.

Are you 23?

That’s the newest Disney question posing it’s way across hyperspace. Why does Disney want to know? And WHAT (really) does Disney want to know? Moreover, why should Disney care about spiking the interest of such a limited group?

No one will know exactly what Disney is up to until March 10, 2009. But I suspect that whatever is up their sleeve is much more than a slice of birthday cake to a select group of people born in the year 1986.

Disney knows that the key to generating excitement, especially via viral marketing, is in the “what’s in it for me!” factor. But that isn’t the only “aha, yeah, so what… and??” that we’ve [hopefully?] learned by following their lead. Surely, we already realize that the beauty of viral marketing is that the marketers (or in this case, the “marketeers”) don’t need to allocate a lot of money on the distribution of the campaign. It simply distributes itself.

So what is it that makes these latest Disney forays so gorsh darn viral (Hint: the answer isn’t all that Goofy).

Disney appeals to the dreams and desires of us all. The “Hey, that’s me!” that makes us believe they’re giving us something that: A) No one else can give us; and  B) Everyone wants.

In return, Disney gets us all keyed up about something AND get’s our email addresses to boot.

That said, Disney isn’t skimping on the quality. In fact, maybe it’s because the distribution costs are so low that they are able to spend more time and money on the message.

Myself, I must have sent the “… Celebration” campaign to dozens of friends and family. And I enjoyed watching it over and over – as did so many of those who responded with their own delight. As for the “23” campaign, given that Disney has so very many ways to deliver on what that is all about (23 new Blu Ray titles? A new “23” movie, event, ride?). Whatever this is, you can bet that Disney is going to continue to tempt us into believing that it was designed “just for us” and just when we most want it.

Check out these two latest viral items:

• Disney’s Are you 23 
• Disney’s Sun 7 News (fake newscast with a spin)

Back in the 1980’s my beloved colleagues and mentors at Indiana University got me involved in a little project that is still going strong and finding a lot of value: The IU Technology Services “Standard Terms List” (insider nod: The use of “STL” is an acceptable acronym variation).

It was during those formative years before the web, that IU’s University Computing Services Publications Group was charged with reporting on and enticing students toward usage of the fledgling realm of personal computing. We were a young department of five persons responsible for writing technical documents, marketing pieces, instructional manuals, and newsletters on every aspect of campus-wide computing.

There was a lot of exciting writing and reporting to be done during those early years, and we quickly learned to enlist experts from across the campus to help us create a buzz.

Consistency and audience tone was key. So how could we make certain our guest writers and lecturers were speaking the same voice when even The Chicago Manual of Style wasn’t ready to offer advise on best practices for such an emerging and quickly expanding area of terminology?

Enter the Standard Terms List. As “keepers of the word,” the Ms. Thistlebottoms and I would refer to this running index as a way to illustrate proper text usage. The original document started with less than 50 key terms and their preferred (and un-preferred) usages. Eventually this index grew into a tool of 1000+ items that is used daily by writers, editors, campus Web managers and support teams across eight campuses.

Taking the success of this document on the road, I’ve found its format a welcome and differentiating deliverable for many large clients including Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Emory University, and SunTrust Bank.

In addition to providing support to my clients’ marketing and editorial teams, this document format proves a valuable tool for:

• QA Teams
• SEO/SEM Tools
• Taxonomies
• Metadata
• and, of course, Knowledge Management and data warehouse teams.

Check out the Indiana University Technology Services “STL”.

I find it fascinating that there’s so little information available out there on the value of taxonomy as a founding principle in Web design strategy.

Taxonomy – the study of the general principles of scientific classification – has been around for hundreds of years. In Web work, it’s generally the organization of contexts into logical groupings and hierarchies.

It’s those groupings that, in turn, help IAs determine navigation structures, metadata, even the very nomenclatures that are the foundation of Web usability best practices.

If you’ve ever been approached to help a client correct a truly horrific Web site, you’ve no doubt found that some (possibly much) of their pain points can be traced back to a poorly designed – or altogether missing – taxonomy.

Maybe it’s that those of us who build Web strategies have just come to see taxonomy as a “given” within the Information Architect’s toolset — something IAs employ but needn’t share with the rest of the creative team or [forbid!] the client.

Maybe people think taxonomy is just an issue for larger, content rich KM sites.

Maybe I’m not finding a lot out there because whoever is writing tomes on taxonomy best practices just isn’t remembering to add metadata to their articles.

Ok. That was a cheap shot. But where IS the supporting data in Taxonomy’s defense? I’m disappointed by just how little taxonomy information is out there on the Web. Do a search on your own and you’ll see examples for “Taxonomy best-practices” and rationales are few and far between.

As a creative body, IAs all too often struggle with clients who “just want to see the comps.” Client’s don’t realize how much of their bottom line rides on the contextual storylines inherent in the usability of the site.

The process of taxonomy creation is really much easier and effective than the name might imply. Yet, I’m amazed at how few IAs are given [or is it take?] the time to apply it. And I’ve [almost] never seen nor heard of a client demand a content outline as a deliverable.

I recall a previous colleague who was asked to design wireframes as the initial deliverable for a large eCommerce client. He produced very innovative wires complete with auxiliary navigations, functional buttons, web 2.0 components… the whole nine yards. The client was delighted with the results. After all, they were the pre-cursors to some beautiful graphics.

The site, however, was completely useless. By not first establishing a contextual format for the linear plots and subplots of the user experience, the navigation “buckets” we’re little more than a sloppy hodgepodge of disparate functions and features. The site’s organization lacked cohesion and the end users simply couldn’t build a mental storyline around its intended purpose.

That’s why, whether creating a new site or performing an audit on an existing one, I find reviewing the site’s taxonomics an invaluable starting point.

I begin with a literary outline based on the site’s overarching goals. Sound too old school for today’s hyper-connected world? You’d be amazed at how much mileage you can get by FIRST establishing the value of those straight pathways. It helps the client visualize those important “subplots” that will eventually become the site’s use cases. It also points out where there are potential holes or disparages in the client’s existing content sets and expectations. It also grounds them in reality that these areas of the site will need to be created AND maintained by someone in order to be successful.

More important, we’re helping rationalize and strengthen their business requirements – an important pre-visual practice before going to the expense of designing (and redesigning) wireframes or comps.

After all, isn’t the role of a good taxonomy advisor to SAVE the client some money?