My team here at Convio has started getting more and more invested in content strategy, and to be honest, I’m totally geeking out. As a technical communications major, I’ve always had a particular propensity for all things regimented about writing. I can’t help it.

I already was following RSS and Twitter feeds associated with grammar and writing, but I’m always on the hunt for more. Recently, I’ve become a big fan of the Word Spy site, or, more accurately the Word Spy twitter feed, which highlights new words and phrases (e.g., email apnea and nontroversy). As such am constantly on the prowl for new words and phrases.

So, you can imagine my utter delight when I stumbled across this phrase as I was reading an entry on Wikipedia: “This paragraph may contain unsourced peacock terms that merely promote the subject without imparting verifiable information.”

I can’t say I know the root origin for the word “unsourced”, but I was more immediately intrigued by the concept of peacock terms. Essentially these are adjectives or prepositional phrases that don’t really have any facts associated with them, but are added simply to be promotional. Examples of these include phrases like among the greatest, the most influential, and the most important.

Certainly there are some times when these are necessary or warranted (something can be the longest, the largest, or the finest), but this guideline is telling Wikipedia content contributors to focus on two core principles of content creation: know your audience and focus on your message. The point of adding information to Wikipedia is to give information seekers more information. Adding irrelevant words and phrases disregards these two characteristics, thereby weakening the information and defeating the purpose of Wikipedia.

Without arguing the merits of all Wikipedia articles as fact (see wikiality), I have to applaud a guideline that says that even though anyone can be a content contributor, there have to be rules in place in order to maintain the effectiveness of the site.

How many organizations and businesses can say that they have guidelines like this? I could rattle off a long list of websites that use a lot of words but don’t offer lot of content.  These organizations have lost sight of who they are writing for and what they are trying to convey, and their websites are weaker for it.

Maintaining focus when you write content can be difficult, but losing focus on who the audience is for the content and why they are coming to your site can be detrimental to your mission. Take a cue from Wikipedia on this one, and check out your content. If you notice more conjecture than fact, it may be time to implement the peacock term rule and start trimming away some of the showy feathers.

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” - Thomas Alva Edison

It’s been one of those days. I came up with what I would call a perfect solution to a design problem. I thought it over, I sketched it out, and it’s pretty darn good if I do say so myself. And then, there it was, looming in the distance - I found a problem; It’s not sustainable. Not even sort of. The person who will be managing this issue doesn’t have the time, the skill, or the technology they need to maintain this “perfect solution” I came up with. It’s not their fault, it’s mine. So, I’m frustrated. My solution is no longer a solution. It’s just another way that won’t work. So it’s back to the drawing board…again.

I can’t imagine I’m alone in this experience. Whether you’re limited by skills, by resources, or by technology, being forced to change directions to solve a problem you feel like you’ve already solved can be disheartening. We start playing the blame game. “Why can’t they just learn this?” or “Why can’t the software just DO that?” “It was the PERFECT solution,” we tell ourselves. But the fact is that we’re wrong. If it was the perfect solution, it would work.

I find that the hardest thing to do when this happens, as hard as it seems, is to let the solution go. I give myself a small window of time to kick around all of the woulda-coulda-shoulda’s. As best as I can, I remove it from my memory. I no longer allow for “if only” or “I just wish”. Instead of reflecting on how I feel about my failed solution, I try to remember what the problem was to begin with. I break it down to the simplest parts. And then, I think of every way I could solve it, no matter how extreme**. No idea is too dumb or too small or too outlandish. They all COULD happen.
**Note: You’d be amazed how many times “win the lottery” fits in as a possible solution.

And you know what? Nearly every time, a new solution arises that is simpler, more reasonable, and actually WORKS. I don’t know how it happens, or why I didn’t think of this solution before, but it works all around. The answer was there all the time.

There will always be software limitations, tight timeframes, and a minimal amount of resources. Especially in an economy that has us watching every penny and counting every dime, it’s become so important to figure out these creative solutions. Figure out how you best work to solve these, and you’ll be amazed at what you can do, regardless of the limiting factors. And until you actually DO hit the lottery, it’ll be a nice skill to fall back on whenever you, like me, have one of those days.

In a recent meeting, my team and I were taking a look at some wireframes and design comps for some current projects. Over the course of the discussions, a point was raised regarding the ever-popular “text resizer”, typically denoted with three capital A’s or plus and minus signs, denoting either a quick way to make the text larger, smaller, or reset to the original size. This practice, viewed most commonly as an accessibility feature, is probably one that you’ve seen on a few websites here and there, and maybe even played around with from time to time. But the debate in the meeting was whether or not this should be considered a best practice for website implementation. My answer, decidedly, is no.

The Argument

As you may or may not know, I compete with a team of other Convions in accessible website competitions. Because of this, I’ve spent what I’d imagine is a bit more time than most looking into features like this, trying to figure out what makes the most sense for users. And while I can still see some merits to including these components, I did want to outline a few reasons why I don’t encourage their use.

They are Unnecessary

Every major browser has native support for text resizing and page zoom. Individual websites who don’t provide on-site resizers are still able to be resized using the functionality inherent in the web browser itself. Spending time developing the functionality within the site is not a wasted effort by any means, but is redundant. Because of this, and for several other reasons, there is also a movement to provide information to users as to how they can resize web text in general. Check out the articles (and comments) about this practice at 456 Berea Street where Roger Johansson recommends scrapping text resize widgets and teaching people how to resize text or over at Accessify where Ian Lloyd talks about how to teach a man to fish (or how to resize text).

They are Difficult to Implement Correctly

In his article Developing an effective text-resizing widget, Joe Dolson states that, "A well-implemented text-resizer should not create issues." After that, he delves into five common considerations that need to be addressed when developing a text resizer. If you couple these issues with the added complexity of content management systems and form templates, you end up with a pretty major undertaking for functionality that already exists within the browser. (Note: For the sake of brevity, I won't get started on using ems instead of pixels to accommodate cross-browser differences.)

They Can Break Designs

Sure, we can test and retest text resizers, but the fact is that a lot of times, they will break a beautiful design. When it comes to website design, there's not a lot that is more disappointing than seeing a your work smashed to smithereens by a text resizing widget that breaks the framework. There are a lot of reasons why this can happen, and most can be solved with proper testing, but it's unfortunate to see a site rendered nearly unusable because of a built-in text widget.

The Cross

With all this being said, I do also want to include the argument for text resizers, because I realize there is still a case for why they are beneficial. I don't know if I've seen a much better argument than this one articulate by Grant Broome, entitled Text size widgits - quite useful actually. I will concede that there are elements of text resizers that, if implemented correctly and tested properly, can be really useful. I don't know if I've seen enough resizers that were implemented well to get totally on-board with this, but then again, I'm not exactly the target audience for the widget to begin with.

Wrap Up

My biggest concern with text resizers is what purpose they are meant to serve. I have too often seen text widgets serve as compensatory measures for bad designs and unreadable text. My main argument isn't that the widget is unusable. Rather, I'm opposed to the idea that the ends justify the means; simply implementing a widget like this doesn't get a site off the hook for looking at other usability and accessibility practices that are more effective for the site. Considering, however, that even my team can't fully agree on this issue, I'm sure some of you out there have opinions, too. Please feel free to leave your thoughts - and in the meantime, if you are having trouble reading this, try hitting Ctrl + +.

I'm not sure if you've heard or not, but it turns out the country is in the middle of an economic crisis. Every morning, we're bombarded with information about economic stimulus packages and layoffs. Naturally (and responsibly) we are all tightening our belts and gearing up for the unknown. Everyone is trying to do more with less, and undoubtedly it's a challenge.

We get questions and requests every day from organizations trying to figure out how to make the most out of the dollars that they have while still improving their online presence. Whenever this question comes up, I first and foremost suggest that they begin using Google Analytics and Google Webmaster Tools.

Most of us are likely familiar with Google Analytics. This is a free service from Google, and is relatively painless to install. This product tracks user activity on your site, and can give you visibility into trends with your web traffic. The info provided isn't the end-all, be-all of definitive quantitative data, but can certainly help to shine a light onto how users are using your site. And, for a free tool, it does provide some pretty thorough reporting and a nice interface.

The lesser known sibling of Google Analytics is Google Webmaster Tools. This may require a little more setup (you need to run a third-party sitemap tool on your site, and you also need FTP access to verify your site), but once installed, this tool can tell you a lot about your web presence. There is diagnostic information regarding errors and problems the Google crawlers (which index your site for the search engine), and problems with meta data like titles and keywords. There is also reporting on the statistical components of your site, like keywords and external sites that are linked to yours. Basically, this tool allows you to see how Google sees your site, and make adjustments based on that information. And, with the great job that Google does with documentation, it's pretty easy to learn the basics. This is an excellent tool for those trying to get a better understanding of their web presence, from search engines to referral links. Used in conjunction with Google Analytics, you're sure to gain some really valuable insight into how your site performs.

Those are my two favorites - free, fairly easy to install, and super informative. I'm sure there are other suggestions out there, and if you have others, please feel free to list them here and in the community. I'll be interested to hear what others are using to help make decisions!

Recently, I've been looking apartment hunting - a tedious process at best. I knew this was coming, so I've been looking for a while. I've scoured Craigs List, rental companies, real estate agencies, and even done quite a few neighborhood drivebys. I'm not usually this thorough, but I don't want to have to move again in a year, so I wanted to be sure that my next place was a keeper.

After some preliminary hunting a couple of months ago, I realized that I'd have to sit down and make a list of the things I was looking for in a new place. After that, I created a list of things I don't like in my current place, and was amazed at what I discovered.

The fact is that I love my current place. It's spacious, it has a yard, it's close to work but also not far from downtown. The neighborhood isn't top notch, but it's not the worst, either. With the washer and dryer connections and businesses close by, I really struggled to come up with much that I don't like about it.

Then, I figured it out; the thing I like the least about my place is the management company I deal with. From the beginning, they have fought me on a couple of fairly basic requests. They have been inaccessible when I have had emergencies and curt when I've needed repairs. I'm not a demanding tenant - to be honest I do most of my own repairs - But, time after time, I've felt jilted by them. And because of that, I'm taking my business elsewhere.

This is a classic example of a user experience that completely changed the way that I interpreted a situation. On paper, there's nothing wrong with the apartment. All of the qualifications of what I want in a place were met. They did everything that they said they would do. However, if we look at my level of trust in the company, and the way that our interaction shaped my perception, we'll find that there's a lot more to the way we worked together than is evident on paper.

The reason that I bring this up is that I find it helpful to keep these sorts of interactions in mind when I'm thinking about user experience. There's a tendency to partition the idea of user experience into customer service, website usability, donor relations, and call centers, But in actuality, these are all trying to accomplish the same thing - helping people to trust your organization and to feel valued. Whether or not that trust is gained or that feeling of value is met can be the difference between renewing or rethinking a relationship. That's a pretty important consideration.

Of course I realize that my current management company will go on without me; they'll re-rent the place and keep getting paid. But, they'll never get my business again, and I certainly won't be recommending them any time soon. In economic times like this, that's pretty much not going to cut it if they want to continue to thrive.

So what can we learn from all of this? Sometimes it's important to draw on the experiences you have had, both good and bad, and use those experiences to help you to make decisions about your constituents' experiences with your organization and your website. Introducing those levels of empathy can make a really big difference when it comes to how you and your constituents interact - and hopefully it will keep them coming back to your organization for years to come.