Impediments to seeing information as a task
Those who created information rarely had to worry about the impact of what they wrote. Until the Web.
A key element in journalistic training is studiously avoiding thinking about the impact of what you’re going to write. Good journalism is about finding out what needs to be said and saying it regardless of the consequences.
This insight was given to me by a friend, Fredrick Wacka, as we discussed the need to measure the impact of content on the Web. There’s a definite ring of truth to what Fredrik was telling me.
In fact, if you extend this thinking out into the literary world, there is a definite disdain for writers who write for an audience rather than for themselves. The idea that you might consider the consequences of your writing is not for the true artist.
What this sort of thinking leads to is a dissociation between the act of writing and the actions that writing might provoke. The writer becomes focused on the writing itself. Once the writing is completed, their job is done. What happens next is not their concern. Until the Web.
A similar way of thinking is that all content has value merely because it exists. The value is in its existence rather than in the actions it might provoke. If a piece of content is interesting to one other person, then that gives it value. A piece of content that has value for just one person is thus given as much weight as a piece of content that has value for 10,000.
Content created for an intranet or a public website needs to be viewed very differently. Such content must pay its way. It must show that it is delivering value to the organization.
People come to the Web to act, to do things. Citizens come to a government website because they want to renew passports, or find out if they qualify for grants. Young people go to university websites because they want to check out course availability.
The active medium of the Web creates a challenge for many traditional writers. They are simply not used to being measured on the results that flow from their writing. They are used to creating help documents, sure. But they are not used to hearing, on a day-to-day basis, whether these help documents are actually helping people.
Until the Web, the act of creating content and the impact that content had on the reader were not really connected. But the Web opens up a window through which we can look and see if the content is actually delivering on its objectives.
Web management is testing-driven. It’s about establishing a set of key customer tasks and then developing and refining a website that allows these tasks to be completed quickly and easily.
More than anything else, it is content that will influence the successful completion of these tasks. Content is a driver of action as never before. We need web writers whose first and foremost concern is the action their content will drive.
Geri says:
Added on June 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pmWhen I read your article about how writers need to be connected to the content they write now, I thought about a writer speaking at a seminar who said the worst feeling in the world was lurking in a bookstore, watching someone take his book off the shelf, read a bit, then put it back on the shelf. At least the web offers the writer the opportunity to go in and revise or rethink content to make it more accessible and useful for the reader.
Kay says:
Added on June 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmI usually agree whole-heartedly with Gerry’s articles, but I find that lately I’ve been feeling confused about the emphasis on tasks - I’m not sure that every reader comes to a website with a clearly articulated task/need in mind. Most people don’t know what they want. Just as people enjoy browsing and making unexpected, serendipitous discoveries in a department store or book store, so too may people wish to just browse a website to see what appeals to them. Comments please, Gerry.
Ric Bolzan says:
Added on June 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 pmAs a manager of a government website I appreciate the need to deliver specific content and services via a website. I agree with Gerry’s position that, as for us, visitation is primarily content and task driven.
One of the challenges of web managers is moderating the requests of people who feel that text, once written, SHOULD be on the website. Key content must be customer-driven. This does not preclude the ability to provide unexpected, serendipitous discoveries within the site. In fact it adds to the richness of the visit.
Bob Johnson says:
Added on June 4th, 2007 at 1:40 amI don’t see a difference between Gerry this time around and Kay’s comment… for certain, I do both things on websites. Purchasing an Air Canada ticket recently on a strange website (first-time visitor) and later searching for a scarce faucet part, I was very task oriented indeed. I needed to “find and buy” and was very impatient with anything that got in the way.
On the other hand, I also visit photo and book collection websites with no special purpose in mind except to wander and browse and find out what people are taking about.
Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:
Added on June 4th, 2007 at 10:46 amI can truly understand the feeling Geri writes about. After all the effort to put a book together, it’s a bit depressing when you see someone pick it up, browse through it, and then leave it down again.
I think on the Web, Kay, most people–most of the time–do have a fair idea of what they want. I think that’s one of the key things that makes the Web different from other media and channels. The Web is active. We tend to have a purpose when we go there.
And Geri makes a very important point at the end of her post. The Web is not fixed. We can test and see was the person able to complete the task. If not, we can adapt.
Martha says:
Added on June 4th, 2007 at 2:24 pmGerry:
I love your work, and though I’m a pretty recent subscriber, I’ve already learned a lot–and applied it, I hope.
But.
I don’t agree with you about the “disdain” you sense in the literary world re: writing for an audience. I work on an intranet by day, have published two non-fiction books, AND in my spare time write fiction, some of which has been published on the Web. And I know I am not alone in feeling that my “literary” writing has been improved by the sense of community (and yes, responsibility) that the Web creates between writer and reader. Many, many “literary” writers are now very aware of the power of the Web. You have only to look at any half dozen writers’ blogs to see that’s so.
Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:
Added on June 4th, 2007 at 3:59 pmMartha, thanks for the positive feedback.
Maybe “disdain” was too harsh a word. However, I have found over the years that there definitely is a type of literary thinking which strongly opposes taking the reader into account too much. It’s frowned on to be “popular” in certain literary circles. Purity of writing is about looking within, so we are told.
Now, they have a point. Those who purely write for a market usually write drivel. However, there’s a certain balance. It’s interesting how you observe that the Web is bringing the writer and the reader closer.
Good luck with your writing!
Martha says:
Added on June 5th, 2007 at 5:31 pmI hear you…I just attended BookExpo America, this mammoth annual celebration of all things bookish, in New York City, and the sponsors included MySpace, and the social media panels were packed. I even met a coffee vendor who wants to “host” writers on their virtual cafe.
It’s actually pretty exciting. On the other hand, yes, people such as John Updike (the essence of a literary writer) have called hellfire and damnation down on the digital world, too.
So we’re both right!
George Farley says:
Added on June 6th, 2007 at 5:38 amGreat newsletter Gerry. Big impact - on me anyway.
Measuring the effect of good, if not great writing, is hard. How deep do you want to drill down? One person may read a book, have their life changed and go on to change the world. The few non-Web authors I know visualise their audience as they write. Not so as to pander to their tastes, but to connect with them.
Keep up the good work.
Matthew Grant says:
Added on June 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pmVery thought-provoking Gerry, so thought-provoking that I’m going to write a post about it on my blog momentarily.
I have to agree with Kay that there are many reasons that people visit the web and completing tasks is but one of them. I divide web behaviors into “web use” and “web exploration” - if I’m booking a flight or buying a book, I’m “using” the web. When I read CNN or the unending flow of blogs or even browse MySpace, I am not “task-oriented” in any meaningful way - I’m exploring or “information foraging,” as some have called it.
Accordingly, I think we need to differentiate between different types of writing on the web. If we are writing for “use,” we apply one set of criteria to evaluate success; if we are writing for “explorability,” the criteria are necessarily different.
Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:
Added on June 9th, 2007 at 12:30 pmI think we’re touching on a big question here with what George and Matthew are writing about. (George, thanks for the positive feedback; appreciated.)
Content, like a book, can have a power that would be very hard to quantify. Content that is news or a general source of knowledge is also hard to quantify.
Over the years, my particular focus has been on what I sometimes call the “accidental publishers”. All those who are not really in the business of news or of changing people’s lives with words.
I’m talking about intranets, university, government and most commercial websites. These sites are about helping people to do things–and they use content to help people do the things they need to do.
This sort of “active” web content can be measured by asking the question: Were people able to do what they came to the website to do?