The Content Wrangler published a “state of the profession” rant about writers who have jumped on the bandwagon of content strategy without going the work the understand the nuances of content production on large projects. Read Know Your Stuff’ or Stop Pretending To Be Professionals.

I was part of a panel discussion at the Gilbane Boston conference, and instead of doing yet-another-panel, my co-presenters and I decided to stage our presentation in the form of a three-act play. Watch One Project, Three Strategies: : What Teams Need to Know About Design, Development and Content Strategies for Content-driven Initiatives. (54 minutes, and the sound quality is iffy but if that doesn’t bother you, you’ll enjoy it)

The Content Marketing Institute published an article about how the goals and production of public sector content is similar to that of the private sector. Read How to Climb the Engagement Pyramid with Public Sector Content.

Data Conversion Labs published an article explore some of the ups and downs of making online books that are both usable and attractive. Read e-publishing.

Be sure that visitors subject your website to the same first-impression scrutiny that they exercise in real life, only faster. It takes 0.1 second to decide whether your site is attractive, 10 seconds to decide that your site is “taking too long” to respond, and 1 minute to be fed up with a task or a video.

Explaining the importance of getting this right is critical to a development team has its problems, as people “yes but” when it comes to their territory. The marketing department may “yes but” over the whiz-bang elements that slow down the site. Interaction designers may “yes but” when asked to redo problematic area. Developers may “yes but” when asked to do over some code. The writers may “yes but” when you insist that a content strategy must precede the content development stage.

Actually, it’s not even the “yes but” that is the problem; that may just development stakeholders working through how to fix the situation. The problem is when the “yes but” is accompanied by a workaround, a justification, or a reason that serves to solve an internal problem rather than a client-facing problem. It can throw the development timeline off, affect the quality of the final product, and compromise the maintainability of the site. Because all of these factors have an effect on the Total Cost of Ownership, sometimes in serious ways, the “yes but” can be the “gotcha” that takes a project down; definitely not something I’d want to underestimate.

When the DUO Consulting newsletter hit my inbox today, and I read Sonny Cohen’s post entitled “Site Loading? Skip Intro? You’re Kidding? I’m Outta Here,” I found myself nodding my head in sad agreement. However, a couple of the comments on the blog got me riled up enough to elaborate on the topic here.

To Flash or not to Flash

I have seen Flash intros well executed, but in very rarely and in very specific contexts. Most of the time, it’s an annoyance or worse, a complete block.I used to be able to successfully aruge with developers by reminding them that Flash undoes their SEO (search engine optimization) efforts. Recently, a developer proudly countered that because Google can now index Flash files, he sees no reason not to revert to Flash. This raised the stakes for me, as the need to “prove” that Flash is counter-productive just became a more laborious task. Here are a couple of user experiences you can try for yourself:

To Flash or Not to Flash

Your task: Find the address of the Moxie’s in Vancouver’s West End.

The test: Does the Flash interfere with getting information?(For a uniquely frustrating experience, repeat the test on your mobile device.)

The site: Moxie’s Classic Grill

Results: I did this exactly once, and only under duress. Each page takes ages to load. The logical “Contact Us” and “About Us” don’t yield any useful information, and the restaurant locator is less than useless. With each page load, I became so resentful of wasting my time (and having my lunch date waiting on the other end of the phone while I went through this exercise), that I now have a slight hate-on for Moxie’s. In other words, the site damaged the brand. It’s not like their menu is so unique that I have to go there to experience a particular type of food.

Conclusion: Nobody likes a flasher, especially when they think that forcing their jiggly bits onto you is cool.

Sound Indulgence

Your task: Go through a testimonial, and find the corresponding site in their showcase.

The test: Can you turn off the sound of the “hostess” to listen to the testimonial? (For a uniquely frustrating experience, try this on a wide-screen laptop, where the lack of screen height  affects the ability to navigate.) How long does it take you to match up the testimonial to the showcase piece? Most importantly, was it worth the work?

The site: Darvak

Results: Observe user behaviour as they wildly start moving the mouse across the page, trying to find the “mute” button. To determine if anyone actually listened to the message, answer these questions:

• What does the organization believe is the key in [sic] graphic design, marketing, and advertising?
• What is the name of the hostess?
• Did they accidentally open the pool game in their desperation to turn off the sound?

Conclusion: Maybe it’s because I spend too much time on airplanes with crying babies that don’t come with mute buttons, but this brings to mind the phrase “Children should be seen and not heard.” Kewl, maybe. Useful? Not so much.

Who Gets It?

The site: Vision Critical

They have a Flash option, which allows users to engage or bypass this. On their products page, the embedded video has controls to allow users to pause and continue, mute, or end the video. Also, users can scan the page while the video loads. And finally, the content in the video is useful. It is an extension of the page content.

The site: Jaguar

The site has a Flash presentation which doesn’t interfere with getting to the information. When I bypass the Flash, I don’t feel like I’m actually bypassing it; I’m simply getting to the information I want. If I want their Flash experience, I can return to it at any time.

The video didn’t really do anything for me, but let’s assume that their market research has shown that the video creates emotional impact. They let you move anywhere in the Flash presentation by moving along the preview bar (Want to see that leather interior again? Click along the bar and return to it.) There is, again, control. I didn’t like the music, so I turned it off.

The site: Adobe AIR

The Flash on the Adobe AIR site is actually useful – it demonstrates what the product does. Their execution is such that I don’t need to take any steps to browse the content on the site or to go about whatever task I set out to do. The lack of interference with other navigation and content elements means that the first time I come to the site (when I’m more likely to view the Flash), I can investigate it when I’m ready to, and on subsequent visits, I can ignore it (because I don’t need to be educated in that way again).

These samples have been chosen at random, from the frustration and appreciation of my personal experience. I used to think I was less tolerant than many users because of my industry experience, but having spent time with some younger users lately, I realize that my tolerance level is quite high, compared to theirs. They expect sites to “just work” and there is about a 2-second window before they go elsewhere in search of content (note: in search of content, not more barriers).

The conclusion isn’t anything startling. It’s nothing that hasn’t been said over the past ten years. Let users stay in control of their experience. Let them complete their tasks without friction. Don’t assume what users want to do on your site; do your due diligence in user-centered design to be sure you’re getting it right. When in doubt, do some user testing. And as a content strategist, I’m obligated to add: start with a strategy, then build to fulfill that strategy.

The first experience is a demand to install Flash. No Flash, no entry. No entry, no activation. End of story. If you’re in business, as I am, you’re always under the gun to get 18 hours of work done in your 12-hour work day. Taking a half-hour out to figure out and bypass all the security settings set up by your Rent-A-Nerd folks can definitely send a middle-aged business owner into a fit of pique.

The fact that I am forced, as a user, to install Flash just to enter the site feels like the epitomy of arrogance. What happened to vendor respect for the users’ time? What if the user doesn’t want Flash cluttering up their system?  It’s practically an invitation to send customers to Sirius, where they can get into the site without any problem whatsoever.

Then there’s the unwanted advertising. After being forced to download Flash, then the unwanted software is used to waste the user’s time with the booming advertising voice announcing that “across the country, people are tuning in to a revolutionary new kind of radio.” Well, duh, if I’m at your site, I already KNOW about XM radio. It’s not something I’d stumble across by accident.

Then, at the next click, the user is ambushed by thumping disco music. Picture the horror on a user’s face when, multitasking at their desk and on the phone with their supervisor, the user innocently clicks, only to be found out by blaring muzack. More clicks, less credibility, more user frustration. It’s only after that point that the user can find links to the station line-up or to activate a radio.

Bottom line: Users want control over their user experience, and on the XM Radio site, web designers have taken away all control on the site. With all the research done on the topic of Flash intros, there’s no excuse for such a poor user experience in 2005.