Subscribe through RSSAre We Not Context Strategists?
It seems everyone in the web community these days is trying to “define” the various discipline areas that make up web development as a whole. It’s funny that human nature forces us to erect parameters upon which to hang meaning.
Perhaps it is how we conquer new frontiers, by staking claim of what is known, before we explore the infinite possibilities of what is not. As the sunset period of Web 2.0 is upon us, it stands to reason that we yearn to solidify definitions before we charter the organic fringes of the Semantic Web …where “relationship” defines meaning over “explanation” and “description”.
Definitions, by their very nature, distill explanations into their simplest form and in doing so often overlook precious nuances of interpretation and opportunities to gain broader perspectives beyond literal meaning.
We can’t always explain things within the compartmentalized reality of what we know.
This past week Jason Schubring at Six Revisions posted The Web Content Strategy Pyramid as a means of explaining the structure of a well-balanced content strategy.
I, myself, have used the familiar pyramid approach to visually explain Web Content: The Anatomy of 150 Words or Less and The Four Kinds of Web Content. In fact, everyone from Maslow to the FDA’s Food Pyramid (the source of inspiration for Schubring’s illustrative definition) have relied upon this basic shape as a rudimentary infographic for their ideas.
The problem with the pyramid is that it applies structure to a structure-less effort. Connecting and communicating with people cannot be delineated by shape. Proportionately it can …but for a strategy based on “the purpose of the website” or the “goals of an organization”, the nuances are too easily lost with a cut and dried approach.
I’m not saying Schubring intended the pyramid to exclude the nuance of strategy …and the 579 people who re-tweeted it obviously felt it was of value (and it is!) however, the very nature of a strategy means individualization.
My fear, as we strive to define the essence of what it is that we do is that we stop looking at possibilities for inclusion.
“I’m frustrated with the characterization of content strategy as “good writing” or “operational issues.” They are unnecessarily limiting, even if taken in the context of the web. I know there’s a design component here, a newly emergent set of challenges that comes with preparing information to be delivered online.
Content strategists are designers, just like I am. And like me, the information architect, the “stuff” content strategists design is somewhat more abstract, somewhat less defined than a couple million pixels. But, aside from the composition of content, content strategists haven’t (to my satisfaction anyway) defined what it is they design, what’s the output of their work.”
~ Dan Brown, Letter to a Content Strategist
The Web Copy vs Web Content Debate
Alice and Rachel over at Contented recently wrote a blog post outlining the difference between web copy and web content. In Web Content or Web Copy: What’s the Difference? they put forth “Over time, the two words have come to refer to different kinds of writing.” And they’re not entirely wrong given the two opposing tracts of web content development: marketing-driven and usability-driven.
My thoughts (which were graciously published as an addendum to the post), is that we need to start looking at the broader definition of “Web Content” as the vehicle that conveys meaning and message. This includes video, audio, copy and graphics.
If Content Is King, Context Is The Kingdom!
The key in an industry that is focused on the expanses of the Web is in broadening our definitions so that they remain inclusive over time …not precise narratives of exacting detail.
I argue that, in time, as we strive to further define our roles as Content Strategists we will, in fact, find ourselves boxed in by the very title we have given ourselves. Because, in reality, we are Context Strategists – extracting, deriving, interpreting, and conveying meaning regardless of the technology at hand.
In many ways, Context Strategy welcomes nuance and interpretation and better positions us for the information/relationship of the coming Web 3.0
Sadly, however, even by that very definition it might just box us in…..
I like where your heading. Context does feel like it encompasses more. From my side of the fence its still hard enough getting people to understand the difference between copy and content.
Drew, I’m totally with you! All these different things keep getting lumped into the title of “writer”–print copy, web copy, content, etc.–without any recognition that there’s a difference or a level of expertise available in any one of those areas.
Yet as we drive towards ever shorter attention spans and shorter content in kind, we must consider where the context will come from: Links, From the best headline writers and content curators, from our socially mediated consumption…
Drew and Sara, I completely agree that broader titles like “Writer” don’t help clients identify a project’s requirements beyond the simple justification for content. The “pen is mightier than the sword”, however, and a call to arms by all writers through education and awareness can only serve to identify our worth beyond words alone.
Michelle, I allude to the ever-increasing limitations of context permeated through our industry in my blog post: A Manifesto Against Plain Language. Of note is the final comparative image – how much history and legacy of meaning are we losing through our drive for less is more?
Transcript of a Twitter discussion regarding the blog post:
>> @beantin: @dianarailton @krismausser Pyramids aren’t helping us. Web needs more ppl who are skilled at linking all the expertise horizontally
>> @beantin I agree! We need to start looking more broadly. Great video from colleague @jeffparks http://tinyurl.com/2ft56bk / cc @dianarailton
>> @krismausser @beantin @jeffparks Very nicely presented video with great insights – would like to watch it again when I have more time.
Thanks for the reminder that more often I need to follow up Twitter conversations with a comment at the source!
As you say in your opening paragraph, it’s human nature to pigeon-hole. So rather than try to fight human nature I believe we need (as an industry) to be better at bringing together all the many disciplines that are require to produce an effective web presence.
We’re seeing argument after argument about which discipline lies at the top (or bottom) of the pyramid – “xxx is king”. What we should be doing is concentrating on linking these skills horizontally in order to help organisations get the best out of the web.
That linking role is crucial – what you call it (web manager, web responsible, project manager, marketeer) isn’t so important so long as they have the breadth and clarity of mind to live up to the job.