Game theory & social media (3): What are you playing at?

Source: buzzfeed.com

[Part 3 of 4: Game theory & social media: Part 1Part 2, Part 4]

Whatever else anything is, it ought to begin with being personal – Kathleen Kelly, You’ve got mail (1998)

Kermit drinking his tea and throwing shade makes me laugh. However, I think we all understand his frustration. It seems that in business and personal relationships, people play games. We may not know why, and we may not know the rules. But as we saw in part 2, before we react, we might want to find out more: if a game is being played, which one, and if we want to play or not.

Games, payoffs, and winning

A game is normally defined as having two or more players, who have a choice of possible strategies to play which determine the outcome of a game. Each outcome has a payoff which is calculated numerically to represent its value. Usually, a player will want to get the biggest payoff possible in order to be certain of winning.

Dominance, saddles, and mixed strategies

Playing the strategy with the biggest payoff is known as the Dominance Strategy, and a rational player would never do otherwise, but it’s not always easy to identify which strategy is best.

So, players sometimes take a cautious approach which will guarantee a favourable result (also known as the Saddle Point Principle). Other times, there is no saddle point so players have to choose at random what strategy to play and hope for the best. They can calculate the probability of mixing up strategies and their chances of winning. If their probability skills are not great they can play experimentally and record their results 30 times (for statistical significance) to see which strategies work.

How does this work on social media? Well, no one knows how social media works so a trial and error approach whilst recording results can be useful. Luckily, Twitter and Facebook both provide services and stats to help.

Free will, utility, and Pareto’s principle

A major question is whether players have free will or not and whether their choices are predetermined based on who they are playing with and the circumstances in which the game takes place. This can depend on the amount of information players have available to them,  and as new information becomes available, they play a specific strategy, thus seeming as if they didn’t have free will at all.

Players assign numbers to describe the value of the outcomes (known in economics as utility theory) which they can use to guide themselves to the most valued outcome.

This is useful if we have a game where the winner doesn’t necessarily take all. If the players have interests which are not opposed and by cooperating the players can end up potentially with a win-win situation or at least a situation where everyone gains some benefits and the solution is not the worst outcome for everyone involved. This is known as the Pareto Principle.

On social media? Retweeting and sharing other’s businesses news is a nice way of ensuring everyone gains some benefits because with a potential market of 307 millions and there is enough of a market to go around for everyone to win-win and of course, reciprocate.

The Nash equilibrium

Taking this further is the Nash equilibrium which was named after John Nash, who proved that every two player game has one equalizing strategy (either pure or mixed) in each game. By looking at the equilibrium strategies of the other players, everyone plays to equalize. This is because, no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy, so it is win-win.

Are you chicken?

Ducks have been known share out the bread thrown to them so they all get some rather than one duck eating everything. This is known as the Hawk-Dove approach in game theory. When there is competition for a shared resource, players can choose either conciliation or conflict.

Research has shown that when a player is naturally a hawk (winner takes all) and plays amongst doves, then the player will adapt and cooperate. Conversely a dove amongst hawks will adapt too and turn into a fighter.

If there are two hawks playing each other the game is likely to go chicken, which is when both players will risk everything (known as mutually assured destruction in warfare) not to yield first.

We adapt very easily to what is going on around us, and on social media this is totally the same. In a 2014 study Pew Research Center found that people are less likely to share their honest opinions on social media, and will often only post opinions on Facebook with which they know their followers will agree – we like to conform.

The volunteer’s dilemma

In contrast, the volunteer’s dilemma is an altruistic approach where one person does the right thing for the benefit of everyone. For example, one meerkat will look out for predators, at the risk of getting eaten, whilst the rest of the meerkats look for food. And, we admire this too. We love a hero, a maverick, someone who is ready to stand up and be different.

The prisoner’s dilemma

But we hated to feel duped which is why the prisoner’s dilemma is one of the most popular game theories of all. Created by Albert W. Tucker in 1950, it is as follows:

Two prisoners are arrested for a joint crime and put in separate interrogation rooms. The district attorney sets out these rules:

  1. If one of them confesses and the other doesn’t, the confessor will be rewarded, the other receive a heavy sentence.
  2. If both confess each will get a light sentence. Which leads to the belief that:
  3. If neither confesses both will go free.

It is in each prisoner’s interest to confess (dominant strategy = 1) and if they both do that satisfies the Pareto principle (2).  However, if they both confess, they are worse off than if neither do (3).

The prisoner’s dilemma embodies the struggle between individual rationality and group rationality which Nigel Howard described as a metagame of a prisoner cooperating if and only if, they believe that the other prisoner will cooperate, if and only if, they believe that the first prisoner will cooperate. A mind boggling tit-for-tat. But, this is common on Twitter with those: Follow me, I will follow you back and constant following and unfollowing.

And, in any transaction we hate feeling like we have been had, that we were a chump, that we trusted when we shouldn’t have, which is why some people are so angry and like to retaliate. Anger feels better than feeling vulnerable does. But, great daring starts with vulnerability, the fear of failure,and even the failure to start,  the hero’s quest shows us that.

Promises, threats, and coalitions

As we add more players, all rationality may go out of the window as players decide whether to form coalitions or to perform strategic style voting. If we introduce the idea of the players communicating then we add the issues of trust in promises, or fear of threats and it all starts to sound rather Hunger Games.

On social media aggression and threats are common, because of prejudice, or group think, especially on Twitter where there is no moderation. And, online and off, we have all been promised things and relationships which have ultimately left us disappointed, and told us that we have been misinformed, like the fake news, we’ve been hearing about a lot lately.  Fake news is not new, in other contexts it is known as propaganda.  And,  if it is not completely fake, just exaggerated, well that’s new either, New Labour loved spin which led to a sexed up dossier, war and death.

Kermit’s next move

Philip D. Straffin says in his book Game theory and strategy, that game theory only works up to a point, after which a player must ask for some clarification about what is going on because mathematics applied to human behaviour will only explain so much.

And so we turn back to Kermit. What is he to do?  He has passive-aggressively asked for clarification and had a cup of tea. What’s his next move? Well, he could wait and see if he gets a reply (tit for tat). Who will crack first (chicken). But with the texts he has sent her, it is likely that her response is somewhat predetermined, or perhaps not, perhaps she will repond with Nash’s equilibria, or at the very least the Pareto principle of everyone not getting the worst outcome.

Alternatively, he could take a breath and remember that he is talking to someone he likes and with whom he wants to spend some time, someone human with the same vulnerabilities as him. He could adopt the volunteer’s dilemma approach and send her an honest text to explain that his feelings are hurt, he thought they had something special, and that she liked communicating with him as much as other people. By seeking clarification in this way, Kermit may just end up having a very nice evening after all –  or not. Whoever said: All’s fair in love and war, didn’t have instant access to social media and all the complications it can cause.

[Part 4]

Stories, Semantics and the Web of Data

My most used words on facebook in 2016
My most used words on Facebook in 2016

As a computer scientist I have spent hours talking to designers, architects and engineers to capture their domain knowledge to model in a computer, with the end goal of helping them do their jobs better. It isn’t always straight forward to perform knowledge elicitation with people who have been doing complex tasks, very well, for a long time. Often, they can no longer articulate why or how they do things. They behave intuitively, or so it seems. So, I listen to them as they tell me their stories. Everyone has a story. Everyone! It is how we communicate. We tell stories to make sense of ourselves and the world around us.

As Brené Brown says in her extraordinary TED talk on vulnerability:

…Stories are just data with a soul…

Up until now, stories have been the most effective way of transferring information but once we involve a computer,  we become very aware of how clever and complex we humans are. With semiotics, we study how humans construct meaning from stories;  with semantics, we are looking at what the meaning actually is. That is to say,  when we link words and phrases together, we are creating relationships between them. What do they stand for? What do they mean?

Semantics

English Professor Marshall McLuhan who termed the phrase the medium is the messagedescribed reading as rapid guessing. I see a lot of rapid guessing when my daughter reads aloud to me. Sometimes, she says sentences which are semantically correct and representative of what happens in the story, but they are not necessarily the sentences which are written down. She is basically giving me the gist. And, that is what our semantic memory does – it preserves the gist or the meaning of whatever it is we want to remember.

Understanding the gist, or constructing meaning, relies on the context of a given sentence, and causality – one thing leads to another – something humans, even young ones like my daughter, can infer easily. But this is incredibly difficult for a computer even a clever one steeped in artificial intelligence and linguistics. The classic example of ambiguity in a sentence is Fruit flies like a banana, which is quite funny until you extend this to a whole model such as our legal system, expressed as it is in natural language, and then it is easy to see how all types of misunderstandings are created, as our law courts, which debate loopholes and interpretations, demonstrate daily.

Added to the complexities of natural language, humans are reasoning in a constantly changing open world, in which new facts and rules are added all the time. The closed-world limited-memory capacity of the computer can’t really keep up. One of the reasons I moved out of the field of artificial intelligence and into human-computer interaction was because I was interested in opening up the computer to human input. The human is the expert not the computer. Ultimately, we don’t want our computers to behave like experts, we want them to behave like computers and calculate the things we cannot. We want to choose the outcome, and we want transparency to see how the computer arrived at that solution, so that we trust it to be correct. We want to be augmented by computers, not dictated to by them.

Modelling: Scripts and Frames

We can model context and causality,  as Marvin Minsky’s frames first suggested. We frame everything in terms of what we have done and our experiences as sociologist Lucy Suchman proposed with her plans and situated actions.

For example, when we go to the supermarket, we follow a script at the checkout with the checkout operator (or self-service machine):

a) the goods are scanned, b) the final price is calculated, c) we pay, d) our clubcard is scanned, and e) we might buy a carrier bag.

Unless we know the person on the cash desk, or we run into difficulties with the self-service checkout and need help in the form of human intervention, the script is unlikely to deviate from the a) to e) steps above.

This modelling approach recognises the cognitive processes needed to construct semantic models (or ontologies) to communicate, explain, and make predictions in a given situation which differs from a formal models which uses mathematical proofs. However, in these human centred situations a formal proof model can be inappropriate.

However, either approach was always done inside one computer until Tim Berners-Lee found a way of linking many computers together with the World Wide Web (WWW). Berners-Lee realised that having access to potentially endless amounts of information in a collaborative medium, a place where we all meet and read and write was much more empowering than us working alone each with a separate model.

And, then once online, it is interesting to have social models, like informal community tagging improves Flickr and del.icio.us. Popular tags get used and unpopular ones don’t, rather like evolution. In contrast formal models use proofs to make predictions so we lose human input and the interesting social dynamic.

Confabulation and conspiracy

But it is data we are interested in. Without enough data points in a data set on which we apply a model, we make links and jumps from point to point until we create a different story which might or might not be accurate. This is how a conspiracy theory gets started. And, then if we don’t have enough data at all, we speculate and may end up telling a lie as if it is a truth which is known as confabulation. Ultimately having lots of data and the correct links gives us knowledge and power and the WWW gives us that.

Freeing the data

Throughout history we often have confused the medium with the message. We have taken our most precious stories and built institutions to protect the containers – the scrolls and books – which hold stories whilst limiting who can access them, in order to preserve them for posterity.

Now, we have freed the data and it is potentially available to everyone. The WWW has changed publishing and journalism, and the music industry forever.  We have never lived in a more exciting time.

At first we weren’t too bothered how we were sharing data, pictures, pdfs, because humans could understand them. But, since computers are much better at dealing with large data sets, it makes sense for them to interpret data and help us find everything we need. And so, the idea of the semantic web was born.

Semantic Web

The term semantic web was suggested by Berners-Lee in 1999 to allow computers to interpret data and its relationships, and even create relationships between data on the WWW in a way in which only humans can do currently.

For example, if we are doing a search about a person, humans can easily make links between the data they find: Where the person lives, with whom, their job, their past work experience, ex-colleagues. A computer might have difficulty making the connections. However, by adding data descriptions and declaring relationships between the data to allow reasoning and inference capabilities, then the computer might be able to pull together all that data in a useful coherent manner for a human to read.

Originally the semantic web idea included software agents, like virtual personal assistants, which would help us with our searches, and link together to share data with other agents in order to perform functions for us such as organising our day, getting more milk in the fridge, and paying our taxes. But due to the limitations of intelligent agents, it just wasn’t as easy to do. So, the emphasis shifted from computers doing the work, to the semantic web becoming a dynamic system through which data flows, with human intervention, especially when the originator of the data could say: Here machine interpret this data this way by adding machine friendly markup.

Cooperation without coordination

It seems strange to contemplate now, but originally no one believed that people would voluntarily spend time putting data online, in the style of distributed authorship, but we have Wikipedia, DBPedia, GeoNames to name but a few places where data is trustworthy. And, we have W3C which recommends the best way to share online.

The BBC uses websites like the ones above and curates the information there to ensure the integrity of the data. That is to say, the BBC works with these sites, to fact check the data, rather than trying to collect the data by itself. So, it cooperates with other sites but does not coordinate the output. It just goes along and gets what it needs, and so the BBC now has a content management system which is potentially the whole of the WWW. This approach of cooperation without coordination is part of what has become known as linked data, and the WWW is becoming the Web of Data.

Linked Data and the Web of Data

Linked data is a set of techniques for the publication of data on the web using standard formats and interfaces so that we can gather any data we need in a single step on the fly and combine it to form new knowledge. This can be done online or behind enterprise firewalls on private networks, or both.

We can then link our data to other data that is relevant and related, whilst declaring meaningful relationships between otherwise arbitrary data elements (which as we have seen a computer couldn’t figure out by itself).

Google rich snippets and  Facebook likes use the same approach of declaring relationships between data in order to share more effectively.

Trust: Data in the wild, dirty data, data mashups

It all sounds brilliant. However, it is impossible to figure out how to get your data mashup right from different sources when they all have different formats. This conundrum is known as data in the wild. For example, there is lots of raw data on www.gov.uk, which is not yet in the recommended format.

Then, there is the problem of dirty data. How can we trust the data we are getting if anyone can put it online? We can go to the sites we trust, but what if they are not collecting the data we need? What if we don’t trust data? What if we use the data anyway? What will happen? These are things we will find out.

How can we ensure that we are all using the same vocabularies? What if they are not? Again, we will find a way.

Modelling practice: extendable, reusable, discoverable

The main thing to do when putting up your data and developing models is to name things as meaningfully as you can. And, whilst thinking about reuse, design for yourself, do not include everything and the kitchen sink. Like all good design, if it is well designed for you, even if you leave specific instructions, someone will find a new way to extend and use your model, this is guaranteed. It is the no function in structure principle. Someone will always discover something new in anything you design.

So what’s next?

Up until now search engines have worked on matching words and phrases, not what terms actually mean. But, with our ability to link data together, already Google is using the knowledge graph to help uncover the next generation search engine. Facebook is building on its open graph protocol  whilst harvesting and analysing its data to help advertisers find their target audience.

Potentially we have the whole world at our fingertips,  we have freed the data, and we are sharing our stories. It may be written in Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun, but it is also written in the same place: Everything is meaningless. I think it is wrong on both counts,  with this amount of data mashup and collaboration, I like to believe instead: Everything is new under the sun and nothing is meaningless. We live in the most interesting of times.

Web design (7): Evaluation

desktopetc

A collaborative medium, a place where we all meet and read and write.
Tim Berners-Lee

[Part 7 of 7 : 0) intro, 1) story, 2) pictures,  3) users, 4) content, 5) structure, 6) social media, 7) evaluation]

Even though evaluation is the final part of this series, it should not be left to the end of any software project. Ideally, evaluation should be used throughout the life cycle of a project in order to assess the design and user experience, and to test system functionality and whether it meets user requirements without creating unexpected results or confusion.

Expert analysis

Expert (or Theoretical) analysis uses a detailed description of the design, which doesn’t have to be implemented. This creates a model of the user’s activity and then analysis is performed on that model.

It is one way of assessing whether a design has good usability principles. It cannot guarantee anything but can hopefully flag up any design flaws before time and money gets spent on implementation.

Expert analysis is best used during the design phase and experts can assess systems using:

Heuristics which are rules of thumb and not true usability guidelines. Usability expert Jakob Nielson developed 10 usability heuristics in 1995 and they are still widely used and quoted today.  Design consultant, Ari Weissman says that heuristics are better than no testing at all, but to say that they can replace getting to know your users and understanding them just silly. Researchers at the University of Nebraska found that heuristic evaluation and user testing complement each other and are both needed.

Review-based evaluation uses principles from experimental psychology and human-computer interaction (HCI) literature to provide evaluation criteria such as menu design, command names, icons and memory attributes to support/refute design decisions. Reviews may even use style guidelines provided by big companies such as Microsoft and Apple.

Model-based evaluation uses a model to evaluate software. This model might be taken from HCI literature such as Stuart Card’s GOMS and Ben Shneiderman’s Eight golden rules of dialog design.

Cognitive walkthroughs are step-by-step inspections which concentrate on what the user is thinking whilst learning to use the system. Alas, it is the analysts who act as the user and try to imitate what the user is thinking. Walkthroughs can be used to help develop user personas.

However, the main criticism is that novice users are often forgotten about because analysts have lots of experience and their pretending to be users can introduce all sorts of bias into your system. The advantages of this approach is that areas which are unclear in the system design can be easily flagged up and fixed cheaply and earlier on in the life cycle.

Using your user: user testing

The most informative types of evaluation always take place with the user. This can happen in the laboratory or in the field. In the laboratory, usability consultants have a script, such as this one by usability expert Steve Krug. The usability consultant asks the user to either do whatever they are drawn to do, or to perform a specific task,such as buying a product on the site, whilst talking aloud. This thinking aloud protocol not only identifies what the problem is, but also why. The best thing about usability testing is that clients can hear a user saying something which may be obvious to the consultant but not to the client and which the client might not believe if the consultant just told them. Co-operative evaluation is a very similar technique to usability testing.

Outside the laboratory, you can follow the user about and shadow them in the workplace, to see how the user interacts with your software, or the current software that your new software will hopefully improve upon. This is ethnography and a way of learning about the context in which your users work. It can be very expensive and time consuming to hire ethnographers to go into users’ workplaces.

A cheap and cheerful way of reproducing this shadowing is to get the users to keep a diary or blog, known as a cultural probe.  They are quick and easy to put together using open-ended questions which encourage users to say all the things they might not say during a testing session.

Empirical evaluation

Another relatively cheap and cheerful method is to get your user group to fill out a questionnaire or a survey in order to get their feedback.

The questionnaire needs to be designed very carefully, following these instructions, otherwise you can end up with a lot of information, but nothing tangible. The main advantage is that you get your users opinions and you can measure user satisfaction quite easily.

The disadvantage is it that is hard to capture certain types of information in a questionnaire such as the frequency of a system error, or the time taken to complete a task.

Logging

Computers can collect statistics of use, to tackle the sorts of questions like time taken and frequency of system errors.  Web stats are a great way of seeing this sort of information as well as which pages are the most attractive and most useful to users.  Eye-tracking software and click captures are also useful ways of collecting data. However, care needs to be taken not to introduce any bias in the interpretation of this data.

Informal evaluation

Informal evaluation methods can be useful, in the design stage for example, but are better suited in the context of performing research as they do not always yield usable results which can be used to guide design.

Focus groups: This is when you get a group of users together and they discuss subjects led by a moderator. Focus groups can be useful. However, they can lead to users telling you what they think they want, rather than what they need. As this 2002 paper asks: Are focus groups a wealth of information or a waste of resources?

Controlled experiments test a hypothesis like this great example: College students (population) type (task) faster (measurement) using iPad’s keyboard (feature) than using Kindle’s keyboard, by identifying independent and dependent variables that you can collect data on after testing in a simulation of real world situations such as in a college where iPads and Kindles are used.

No matter how great your website or software system is, it can always be improved by some method of evaluation. There are many methods involving users and experts to make your system as good as it can be throughout the whole lifecycle of your website or your software. Evaluation is the only way to identify and correct those design flaws.

Web design (6): Sharing and caring on social media

 

desktopetc

A collaborative medium, a place where we all meet and read and write.
Tim Berners-Lee

[Part 6 of 7 : 0) intro, 1) story, 2) pictures,  3) users, 4) content, 5) structure, 6) social media, 7) evaluation]

Nowhere is Berners-Lee’s vision of the World Wide Web more true than on social media. We all have access to as many conversations as we want. We can instigate new conversation, listen to other people talking, and dip in and out of art, music, video, and other amazing creations.

Most of the articles on social media for web design is about content marketing and content marketing strategy, which is a way for businesses to raise their profiles and create brand awareness, generate new sales, new customers, and keep customers loyal.

The main way to do this is by creating targeted content which is valuable and useful to the user/customer who then trusts a company and is more likely to buy from them. Content marketing is big business, and getting bigger every year according to i-scoop.eu.

Moz.com has published a best practices for social media marketing saying that before businesses promote their products and news, they must also build relationships with their customers so that they feel like they are part of a community. Sharing different types of content, not just information about their products and promotions, is one way of starting new conversation and creating new experiences with customers to encourage a trustworthy feeling.

Newspapers like the FT let their customers to do some of their marketing by providing tweetable quotes throughout their articles which link back to the news item on their website. This is a great way of using all the best content on your website.

A hierarchy of social media?

The types of information we share on social media fit nicely into Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which I call Maslow’s hierarchy of social media.

Content marketers believe that the further down Maslow’s triangle you are, the more likely it is that you are fulfilling customers’ basic needs which may encourage customer loyalty. However, customer needs aside, the information type which is shared more than anything other on social media is surprising information in the form of stories, short videos, images. Apparently, we all seek that twist in the tale.

Alone together

Spiritual thinker Deepak Chopra believes we are connected and are raised up by social media. In contrast Sociologist Sherry Turkle feels that social media is changing us and not in a good way. Writers Jennifer Weiner and Jonathan Franzen both concur and believe that social media encourages the worst in us. Social media, of course, offers both experiences: enriching and depressing. It can be a feeding frenzy of attack but also an amazing way of augmenting humans with others’ talents and skills and knowledge.

Of course, the reality is that no one really knows how social media works, which is why companies spend billons each year trying to find better and faster ways of reaching their target market by tweeting, facebook, instagram and blogging.

A masterclass

One of the best brands online is OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network. During Oprah Winfrey’s 25-year TV series, she created a community. Her message was: You are not alone, by which, Oprah tapped into one of our deepest needs – we all want to feel that we matter. We want to be included a community and to be heard in conversation. We want to feel connected, so that we can be open and participate in life with others.

Since ending her award winning show, Oprah and her network OWN have reached out to its audience via social media to give information and courses and communitas. They have given us all a masterclass in how these tools should be used to satisfy both the customer and the business, and they continue to go from strength to strength.

Social media is an exciting way of instantly connecting to your customers and creating community in order to direct people to your website. Done well you users will happily co-create alongside you on your website, enriching you in ways only Tim Berners-Lee had the vision to see.

[Part 7]

Web design (4): Being content with your content

desktopetc

A collaborative medium, a place where we all meet and read and write.
Tim Berners-Lee

[Part 4 of 7 : 0) intro, 1) story, 2) pictures,  3) users, 4) content, 5) structure, 6) social media, 7) evaluation]

A website should be looked after and tended. It is not enough to create a great layout and visuals, you need to look after the content and have a strategy for keeping your website in great shape.

Content Curation

The terms curation and curating content are bandied about a lot. I like them because it emphasises that you have to take care of your website or app content, like a curator in a museum would.

In any exhibition, every artefact is linked and relates to the others so that a story is told as you work your way through the exhibition. The curator has spent a lot of time and effort creating an experience. And, so it is with the content strategist. Every piece of information on your website has to be relevant to your brand, message, themes, and communication plan, which all link back to the overall reason your website exists: What is your website for?

In her book Content Strategy, Erin Kissane advises using detailed written recommendations, a content style guide and templates, for each page and wireframe within an information architecture. This is so the people involved in generating or curating the content can do so in a way which produces:

  • A site wide consistent tone of voice.
  • A clear strategy for cross linking content site wide.
  • Integrated content.
  • Skillfully used social and community input.
  • Accessible and usable multi-media content.

Years ago when I was in charge of my first website (‘Hello World!’), I asked someone if they would write a page or two for new arrivals to our lab. The resulting information was good and useful, but I rewrote some of it to keep the tone of the site consistent.

The person who had produced the original information, was so offended, she didn’t speak to me for a while, and there was bad feeling all round. Now I see that I was just curating my site. Had I been wiser and more experienced I could have offered some guidelines in the way newspapers and magazines have an in-house style guide. Little did I know.

Wikipedia, has got to be the largest example of great content co-creation. Anyone in the world can contribute but the end result is one of a specific style and layout. A user can land on any page and feel that it is consistent and written in a similar way. There are several pages of instructions to ensure this look and feel, so that Wikipedia doesn’t ever feel like a hodge-podge.

Interestingly enough, if you land on page when the content guide has not been followed, say for example that the page is missing secondary links, then a banner at the top of the page will flag this deficiency up. This immediately allows the user to make a decision as to whether or not to use that information, and this leads the user to feel that the page is a work-in-progress. Overall it is does not impact on the reputation of Wikipedia. The user still trusts Wikipedia.

Responsive Content

Looking at content and studying each word, is for those wordsmiths who love words. It requires good editorial attention. Therefore, it is worth hiring someone who can work from the beginning with information architects and stakeholders to work out taxonomies and structure so that the content guidelines and recommendations fit together beautifully.

Karen McGrane states quite clearly on A List Apart, that responsive design won’t fix your content. She has seen many a project fall apart at the end when people create beautiful fast responsive websites which serve up the same old content. No one has evaluated and redesigned the content and thought about how it will look on various devices.

Indeed usability guru, Jakob Nielson, feels the same way and in his mobile design course advises the designer to cut features and content, so that information and word which are not core to the mobile use case can be cut and all that secondary information can be deferred.  If the user wants an in depth conversation, they know that they can go to the desktop version for all the extras.

Best Practices for Meaningful Content

Usability.gov provides a content strategy best practices list that you can use to question each piece of content. Does it:

  • Reflect your organisation’s goals and user’s needs and overall business message?
  • Use the same words as your users?
  • Stay on message, up-to-date and and factual?
  • Allow everyone to access it?
  • Following style guides?
  • Allow itself to be easily found internally and externally?

Persuading the user

Ultimately, with content, what we are trying to do is to persuade the user to buy our product, or take some action, like donate money. We can’t afford to bore our users and waffle on. We carefully craft our conversation and entertain them.

Colleen Jones in her book Clout: The Art and Science of Influential Web Content says that this has always been done with rhetoric, which is now a bit of a lost art which we need to regain. For, ultimately, rhetoric is the study of  human communication.

We are communicating our message, our story, and we so we need to make sure, as Kissane says, that we: Define a clear, specific purpose for each piece of content.

We need to get to the core of our message.

No Lorum Ipsum

In a great article on AListApart.com, Ida Aalen talks about getting to know what the core information is of a site and then designing around that. She uses the example below, taken from the Norwegian Cancer Society’s lung cancer webpage to demonstrate that there is a lot less needed on a page than stakeholders think. She calls this designing around the core, and if you design around core content and message rather than all the bits and pieces everyone feels should be mentioned on the homepage or elsewhere, then the design itself is very easy to do.

"Identifying

With the content in place, no one is designing pages full of the Lorum Ipsum or Hello World text and decisions are made as to where and when each piece of information is put and links to the next.

Aalen has found that designing this way has led to increased user (or audience) engagement and increased revenue generation. This is because the audience can do things more easily and quickly. There is no extraneous content distracting them from their goals and the business goals, and content becomes a business asset.

Content Marketing Strategy

Once you have all your sharp content, it becomes easier to create a content marketing strategy, which is a different process to your content strategy.  This was one is solely concerned with encouraging your audience to engage. Social media is a wonderful tool, but no one really knows how it works, which is why you need a good marketing plan.

Well crafted content is too good not to be shared. But first it needs to be structured.

[Part 5]