We’ve been doing this on our own since 2009. Running our own business wasn’t as much our dream as creating great website the way we thought they should be built.

Striving for high levels of accessibility and intelligent user interface was always foremost in our work. It just happened that running our own business was the best way for us to achieve that: building websites in the way that was important to us.

In the past two and a half years we worked on some great projects and with some excellent graphic designers. We’re proud of the way we worked, built associations and grew the business.

When we started working with Floate Design Partners it felt like kismet. That old adage of “you know it when you feel it”? That’s what we had. They knew that websites required a lot of time and attention. They understood that design was medium specific. They understood what we were about and that we had passion and skill.

In the team at Floate we saw a reflection of that passion and skill. Both parties were largely about solving problems in the most effective way possible. Towards the end of 2011 we worked together a lot.

It made sense that we would join forces. It made sense that the smaller team would move in with the bigger team. Everything about it made sense.

Also, it meant that Peter and I could concentrate on doing what we do best: producing excellent UX and website code. No longer would we have to worry about accounts, finding new clients, chasing payments or the best way to calculate a BAS.

So Floate Design acquired Soupgiant at the start of this week and we couldn’t be happier. Peter and I are concentrating on creating great web-based experiences and doing more of it. We’re happy.

Peter will continue blogging about code here and I’ll be putting some posts up on the blog at the new Floate website (which we were hired to build before the move).

Thanks for being a great part of the whole Soupgiant experience.

Colleen Jones’s book, Clout: the ART and SCIENCE of INFLUENTIAL WEB CONTENT, faces this problem from the outset. Right there on the cover it straddles the fence of condescension. Its subtitle invokes the renaissance and dares to use the word “influential”: Influence being the characteristic sought by all who write content for the web but never mentioned explicitly for fear of being judged manipulative.

In that way, Jones’s title teaches us the first lesson the book has to offer: Sometimes it’s better to be explicit than pretend to be something you’re not.

Inside the book, the lessons continue and it’s quickly evident that these are lessons for the less informed content creators. The reader is eased into the concept of content strategy. For the uninformed it’s an introduction while the informed are given some ready-formed arguments to help sell the idea of content strategy to those who need to buy it.

Jones’s book is a primer for content strategy, focussing more on creating content with a taste for the planning and analytics that go along with other parts of the strategy. She describes in appropriate detail why creating the right sort of content is difficult and how it’s a job that is never really finished.

Important for any introductory book, and successfully achieved by Jones, is informing the reader that there is still so much to learn before becoming an expert. Throughout Clout, she refers to the other leaders in content strategy like Ann Rockley, Kristina Halvorson and Erin Kissane, and she prescribes further reading into areas of marketing, planning, heuristics and analytics.

In Australia we’re particularly bad at explicit instruction. The title garnered some judgement amongst colleagues and judgemental looks on public transport. Our attitude is often “what could a book tell me about what I do?” The answer is: “A lot. Now, shut up and read.”

Clout puts the concept of content strategy into perspective for those who do it on a daily basis and those who are new to the idea. For those of us who work in the field, it serves as a reminder of what it is we’re trying to achieve and who to talk about it to those who have no idea.

It’s an issue across branding, functionality and user experience.

Previously Google represented novelty, ease of use, simplicity and innovation. With every half-baked idea, lacking basic intra-operability and seemingly losing sight of their own suite of services, they damage the trust we invested in them.

Maybe it’s only a little bit at a time, but it all adds up.

Where I had “Vodafone will correct its billing system on 8 July 2011 to include three types of data usage,” she suggested adding the word “additional” so that the sentence would read:

Vodafone will correct its billing system on 8 July 2011 to include three additional types of data usage.

That single word clarifies the situation a lot more.

One of the reasons we perform user testing in web design is to get someone who has not lived with a website for months to point out something we’ve missed. The same thing happens with content. Having another pair of eyes look over some content is a vital part of a content strategy.

When we build content at Soupgiant, almost nothing leaves the office without at least one other person looking at it. That’s part of our content strategy.

Every blog post is read, redrafted and proofed before publishing. Many of our emails are double-checked and workshopped. We want to make sure that the message going out with our brand on it accurately represents our brand. Sometimes we even cross-check tweets.

This helps in a number of ways. Most importantly it means that every bit of content is clear in its intention. It also, however, means that we’re involved in, and aware of, how the business is represented in the outside world.

In small to medium sized businesses, it’s rarely prudent to run a piece of content through a focus group but it is often easy to get someone else in the organisation to read through something.

For a large organisation, like Vodafone, there are hundreds of people within the office who could have looked at the content of that email and offered suggestions.

This part of content strategy fits into content management and follows two very simple rules:

1. Somebody must be in charge of approving content before it is released.
2. The person who created the content cannot be the person approving it.

Sometimes you might find you’re all alone, with no one to check the content and no ability wait until somebody else has a chance to look at it. This always feels weird but it works every time; If your content is written, read it aloud.

When you read something aloud you’re substituting your ears for someone else’s eyes. You will be able to hear long sentences, ambiguities, questionable jargon and anything else that doesn’t fit into your branded message.

Nobody enjoys reworking something they previously thought was finished. It’s tedious and annoying but it’s less tedious and annoying than having your brand associated with a twitter hashtag that ends in “fail”.

7. linking to this web site

7.1 If you wish to establish a link to this web site you must, in the first instance, use the Contact Us link at the top of the page and provide the following information:

a) the URL of the web site that you seek to establish a link from;

b) a brief description of your web site; and

c) the reason that you wish to establish a link.

7.2 If RACV agrees to your proposed link, you must comply with any terms and conditions imposed by RACV as a condition of such agreement. If the nature and/or content of your web site changes in any significant way, you must contact RACV and provide a new description of your web site.

Is this good SEO practice? Is it a reasonable web practice considering the need for links to create the web itself?

Is there copyright on the URL? Who owns that copyright?

In keeping with their policies, I have not linked to the appropriate page but you can find it by going to racv.com.au and clicking the link at the bottom of the page titled “RACV Website Terms & Conditions of Use”.

Recently, Vodafone Australia sent its customers an email titled “Important information on your data charges.” That sounds like a descriptive subject line, but is it?

The email was about Vodafone correcting an issue in its billing system that meant certain internet activity on their mobile phone plans was not calculated correctly. The purpose was to inform, so the subject isn’t wrong, it’s just not the best title they could have used. “Changes to how we calculate your data usage” is only one character longer but tells us instantly what to expect in the email.

Vodafone, in its mobile phone contracts, includes a certain amount of data transfer per month. If their customers exceed that amount of data transfer they will be charged extra. The first paragraph of the email reads:

Vodafone is implementing a correction to its billing systems on 8th July 2011 that will result in charges for three types of mobile handset data usage. The data usage charges are in line with customers’ existing contracts but were not previously billed.

The word “charges” here is, at best, ambiguous. It could mean that customers were, from 8 July onward, going to have to pay extra for those types of data usage. It could also mean that data transfer used for those particular purposes was now going count towards the total data usage when previously it was not.

Ambiguity in a single word is enough of a sign that a piece of content is not clear in its purpose. Here’s a version of that opening paragraph that avoids the ambiguity:

Vodafone will correct its billing system on 8 July 2011 to include three types of data usage. Previously, data used in services listed below were not counted in the data allowance for your plan. As a result, your calculated usage may increase dramatically.

The Big Red Tin version is only seven characters longer than Vodafone’s version. If Vodafone wanted to be even clearer about the changes being a correction and not a new set of charges they could have added the word “incorrectly” into the second sentence so it read: “Previously, data used in services listed below were, incorrectly, not counted in the data allowance…”. It just drives the message home a little clearer that Vodafone’s customers are not getting a dud deal here but were, up until now, getting a free ride.

When a company like Vodafone issues an ambiguous email like that, it causes a great deal of confusion. The forums on the broadband information site, Whirlpool, have at least 122 posts of discussion about what the email might mean. On Vodafone’s own community forums there are another 93 posts at the time of writing.

One of the posts on Vodafone’s website shows exactly the problems that content unclear in its intention can cause. Alcook writes:

This was the worst worded email I think I have ever received. It is completely misleading and basically inaccurate. Thank you for wasting about 45 minutes of my time investigating just what the hell it actually meant…

How does a major company get it so wrong? That’s where content strategy comes into play. At its most basic level, content strategy dictates that every single piece of content needs to be clear in its purpose. Content can be a video, a picture, a manifesto, an email or a text message. Clarity comes about by having clearly stated goals and intentions but also by having someone check that a piece of content achieves its purpose.

The cost of spending an extra hour on making sure an email is clear is minuscule compared to the cost of the ill-will the badly worded email created for Vodafone.

Postscript:

Just for the challenge, I created a version of the message that fits neatly inside a tweet:

We will correct our data usage billing system on 8//7/11. Previously, data used in some services weren’t counted in some plans’ allowance.

The message doesn’t have to be complicated to get a complicated idea across. This tweet could have been followed by another containing a URL providing for a web page with more information.

The only computers my parents have ever used are Windows machines. They call viruses “bugs”. My father still complains about the purchase of a seemingly unnecessary maths co-processor in 1990. My mother writes down all the instructions I give her and follows them one by one. These are not people to whom computer technology naturally presents itself as being in any way obvious to use.

Add to that the fact that my parents both have English as a third language and the need for clear and obvious instructions or steps is even more understandable.

So it was important to me to see how they attacked the problem of setting up a new iPad armed with only the box it came in. I filmed them as they went through the process trying as much as possible to be an independent observer. I wanted to uncover answers to two main questions:

1. Are the things we consider to be user-friendly really that obvious?
2. What are the barriers to entry for someone who wants to use technology but regards it with suspicion?

They opened the iPad box to reveal the following 5 separate pieces:

• the iPad itself
• a USB cord
• a power supply
• an Australian power plug adaptor
• an envelope which itself features:
  • a pin clipped to the outside
  • a card with a picture of an ipad on one side
  • warranty information
  • apple stickers

That was it. No instructions that they could see.

They shuffled through all of the documentation in the envelope and couldn’t find any instructions. There are instructions on the back of the card with the iPad on one side but it took a while to notice them.

In all the “unboxing” videos and photo collections I’ve seen, nobody ever looks at the back of that card.

The first instruction is to download iTunes.

Dad didn’t want iTunes. He wanted to use his iPad. He had no intention of using it to play music.

For someone suspicious of technology this is enough of a barrier. There is no explanation of iTunes being the software that will prime the iPad. iTunes is a music player.

All my parents needed was a preceding line that said “You will need iTunes to set up your iPad” and their suspicion would have been subdued. The assumption Apple made, however, is that people will follow instructions without explanation.

When building websites we often assume that what we have designed is obvious. It might be obvious to someone who has used similar things before but what about someone who has never used it before?

We deal with usability every day. We hope that the things we create work for everybody who uses them. In the box for iPad 2, Apple provides the instruction for what to do next but not why it should be done. People should be suspicious when a corporation, website or person tries to force trust and faith.

There are other moments in the set up when this happens. It happens with accepting the iTunes EULA. Apple pretends to offer a choice but it’s really just dictation. Accept or don’t use the $900 device you just purchased. That’s the choice.

Of course, this sounds a lot more sinister than it probably is but it’s so easy for bad instruction to feel like being ordered rather than guided. That is something we need to keep in mind when designing for usability. Sometimes there is no choice but if we are given reason then lack of choice is so much easier to swallow.

Update: 9 June 2011

Apple are trying to improve this experience with a no-computer no-itunes set-up process with the impending release of iOS 5.

Engaget has screenshots of what the process will look like. Turn it on and get a set-up screen. Now that’s more like it.

(Thanks to @adnrw for pointing this out.)

Recently I saw a TED Talk (embedded after the jump) by Rory Sutherland, Vice Chairman for the Ogilvy Group in the UK. In it he describes how it’s the small things that really make all the difference. These small things are the details.

A friend just booked a ticket on Jetstar while I watched (these are the things I do on my holidays). Jetstar’s ticketing system is pretty simple and straight-forward until you get to the seat choice page.

This is where confusion occurred. She clicked around for a bit but, very simply, just did not know what to do. The page confused her.

If you’re also confused, the squares with the stars, circles and crosses are seats. Some of those are seats that are already reserved (red with crosses), some cost extra because of their premium positions (up front or extra leg room). The squares with light grey and dark grey inside them are available.

Mostly the problems related to the tabs at the top of the seat chooser. See that the “Flight Back” tab is a dark grey and so are the headings on the sidebar areas on the left? This is a confusion of the visual grammar of the site (highlighted in the next image).

In this context, a dark grey background means “heading”. It’s possible to make this even more specific and uniform and say that a dark grey heading background with capitalised, italicised and white text means “heading”.

Because of this initial confusion, something else I hadn’t expected happened. The visual grammar prompted her to imagine a separation line extending down from the edge of the tabs. The way she initially read the page, the left half of the little boxes were for seats on the flight out and the right-hand-side were for seats on the way home. Because three little boxes did not correlate with her knowledge of aeroplane seating, she was at a complete loss of what to do.

The tasks she expected to be able to perform on this page and the information she received from the page were at odds with each other and a kind of user paralysis settled on her mouse hand. I’ve seen this user paralysis before. The user eventually gets over it and figures out what the page is asking of them or they give up and shop elsewhere. Either way, they think less of the website and the company as a result of their negative experience.

The very same thing happened to me when using the Myki website for the first time to purchase my card. I only persevered out of professional interest for how to make a poor user experience. If I was anybody else I would just continue to buy my public transport tickets at the local milk bar.

A lack of attention to detail causes user paralysis. Very few website producers manage to create a website without something that could lead to this, but it happens most often in forms. It’s one of the reasons that user testing is so important. It’s also a good reason to have some budget up your sleeve to make a whole bunch of tiny changes about 6 months after the website launches.

When we’re building websites we try to preempt what a user will experience. If we skip steps in designing these experiences, or rush, or miscommunicate some ideas, we are in danger of spoiling the user’s opinion of the company, our client.

We ask a lot of questions of our clients because the way their customers use their websites will be a vital part of their business. Sometimes this means finding out a lot about how the business works. Sometimes it means asking questions that the client thinks irrelevant or has never really thought about before. It’s hard work for all involved but it’s exactly through this process that we get to identify a lot of the details we need to include in the website.

Some tiny details are all that the Jetstar seat checker required to make it more obvious on how to proceed:

1. Make the active tab consistent with the heading styles;
2. Create some lines of demarkation between the tabs to make their seperation more obvious;
3. Identify the windows and aisles of the aeroplane;
4. Declare the type of aeroplane to give a better idea of what the user is looking at.

I’ve created my own version of this in the image below. I am, by no means, a graphic designer, so please excuse the sloppy work. The point, however, is that it wouldn’t take very much work to fix this, but it’s also really easy to see how something this small could be missed the first time around.

My friend would have worked out the page within about 30 seconds but she shouldn’t have had to work at all. All the work should have been done for her beforehand. Our job is to make website interaction as obvious as possible. Doing that takes a lot of attention to detail.

And now, enjoy learning a little bit more about details from Rory Sutherland:

It’s going to be a ton of hard work to get really good, and sometimes great, domain names. It will take tons of debate, hours and hours of making lists, and countless emails reaching out to folks to buy a domain.

Branding is hard.

Acquiring great domains is hard.

That’s why investors, customers, partners, the press and potential hires pay attention to it.

People judge books by their covers, and investment deals by their domains and logos.

from Jason Calacanis’s newsletter where he imparts words of wisdom and tales of experience.

“Safari, Chrome and Internet Explorer leave a blank space in place of the styled text while the web font is loading. Opera and Firefox show text with the default font which switches over when the web font has loaded, resulting in the so-called Flash of Unstyled Text (aka FOUT).”

Richard Rutter wrote an excellent piece about how to avoid these different behaviours. I thought it was worth quoting and linking to twice.