10 problems your content management system will not solve and how to overcome them

Posted in Development on October 30, 2009 by Paul Boag

Content management systems are often perceived as a silver bullet that will solve all your content problems. In reality having a CMS is not enough. You must also address broader issues associated with the content of your website.

So many website owners hate their content management system. This is often because it has failed to live up to their unrealistic expectations.

Many organisations purchased their CMS hoping to solve a wide range of issues surrounding content production and delivery. In reality, a CMS is only capable of overcoming relatively few. In fact often a content management system will solve one set of problems only to create more. It is these new problems that I wish to address here.

What follows is a list of 10 issues that are either directly created by content management systems or that a CMS will fail to solve.

1. A lack of editorial control

One of the primary reasons organisations purchase a content management system is to de-centralise control of content and therefore remove the bottlenecks that surround posting content to the web.

The consequence of this approach is a lack of central control to ensure the quality and accuracy of copy produced. This can lead to contradictions and varying styles of writing across the site.

Although many content management systems provide the tools for central editorial control, they are not always used and require somebody with the editorial experience.

The Solution: Get an editor

Unfortunately this is one problem that technology cannot solve. What is required is a content editor. Somebody who checks what is being produced and ensures it communicates a consistent message in a consistent tone.

Ideally this should be somebody who has experience in writing and editing online copy. However, the most important thing is that this person feels confident in editing copy, and has the authority to remove inappropriate material.

This person will also require a vision for the site and in particular what personality it should be projecting.

2. A lack of personality

Many websites lack real personality. They either ooze marketing BS or come across as singularly bland. This is largely due to the fact that they have been written by people more interested in communicating facts or selling stuff, than wishing to engage with users.

Websites with great copy that is full of personality, stand out from the crowd. They do more than convey information. They actively seek to make a connection with users in much the same way people do face to face.

Unfortunately the distributed nature of content production through the use of a CMS undermines that.

The solution: Decide on your sites personality

The first step towards overcoming this problem is to define who you are. If your website was a person what type of person would it be? What words best describe your sites character? Is it playful, serious, enthusiastic, or friendly?

Next put together a content style guide. This will include examples of writing styles that should be used on your website. It will also include guidelines in terms of tone and wording. This document should then be distributed to your content providers.

Producing an effective content style guide is not an easy task. You might wish to consider employing a freelance web copy writer if you do not have somebody in house. However once it has been produced, it should provide everything your content providers need to add some
personality into your copy.

Of course that does still require your content providers to be committed to the cause.

3. Uncommitted contributors

One of the great selling points of having a content management system is that they allow anybody to post to your website. Unfortunately, just because your staff can edit the site, does not mean they will.

It is not unusual to find that content management systems go unused except for by a few individuals. The belief that content management can be easily decentralised is false. There are two primary reasons for this.

Firstly, some people do not see it as their responsibility to provide web content. They see the website as a marketing or sales tool and so should be managed by marketeers.

The second reason is that most people do not have the time. Writing web content is often seen as a low priority and constantly gets pushed out by “real work.”

The solution: Recognise the importance of the web

The solution to this problem has to come from senior management.

The website needs to be seen as a critical business tool and job descriptions must reflect this by making site maintenance a key component of people’s job. This should include website duties being apart of employee assessment.

There is however another reason people do not using the CMS – they don’t know how to use it.

4. Poorly trained authors

When an organisation rolls out a new content management system they almost always offer some form of training. However, in many cases it is not enough.

Normally training consists of an intimidating manual and one off training session. For the few people who are updating the website regularly this is probably enough. However for more infrequent content providers, this is inadequate.

The trouble with one off initial training sessions is that by the time the content provider comes to update the website, they have forgotten what they learnt. Admittedly the information they need may well be contained in the manual, but who reads those?

This can easily lead to only a few people capable of making updates to the site, thereby undermining the very reason for having a CMS in the first place.

The solution: Provide video training material

The combination of occasional users and new employees, means that most organisations need a long term strategy for training people in the use of their content management systems.

We have found that a series of short video tutorials covering key functionality works much better than training sessions or intimidating manuals.

We still run training sessions for frequent users. However, the video tutorials allow users to work through the material at their own pace. Also, unlike a training course they can learn only the parts of the system they actually need.

However, training in the technology is only half the battle. Content contributors also need to know how to write compelling copy.

5. Bad copywriting

The harsh truth is that not everybody can write good web copy. Even somebody who writes brilliantly in print, does not necessarily write well for the web.

There is an art and science to writing good web copy that many people are unaware of. Copy written by content providers is often verbose, un-engaging and hard to scan.

The solution: Provide a structure for content production

The solution is three fold:

First, the introduction of an editor means that content providers do not have to worry about writing perfect copy. It should be the job of the editor to take the raw copy they provide and re-write it for the web.
Second, the training provided with a content management system should extend beyond the functionality and also include advice on writing good web copy.
Finally, by producing a basic template for content providers you can help them focus their writing. A content template should ask questions such as who is the audience, what is the key message for this page and what is the call to action?

However, the problem is not just limited to the quality of content but also the quantity.

6. Bloated websites

Much like this post, most websites end up far too bloated. This is a problem that content management systems only serve to exaggerate.

By removing the barriers to putting content online, you encourage people to add more. However, more is not always better.

Content providers often approach the website with entirely the wrong mentality. They look at the content they have or can easily produce, and decide to put it online because “somebody will find it useful.” They are driven by what content is available, rather than user’s need.

The problem is that the more they put online, the harder it is for users to find the content they want. It is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

The solution: Focus on users and remove

The best solution is to prevent this from occurring in the first place. This is done by fixating on user needs. Before putting anything online ask two questions:

Is the content aimed at your primary audience?
Is the content essential for helping those users complete their objectives?

If you cannot answer yes to both questions, then seriously consider whether putting the content on your website will cause more harm than good.

Of course, you may already have a bloated website. If this is the case then you need to review each page of your site and apply the principles above. If a page fails to cater for a specific use case of your primary audience, then it maybe time for it to be removed.

The problem is that most organisations have people responsible for adding content to their websites. However, few have somebody charged with removing it. This is an important role and one your web editor should have the power and time to do.

However, user needs is not the only criteria for judging the worth of content. There are also calls to action.

7. No clear calls to action

As I have already said, most content providers are focusing on conveying information rather than meeting users needs. However, they are also neglecting the business needs too.

With the exception of marketeers and sales people, few content providers are thinking about calls to action. What is it that you want users to do next? How do you wish them to respond?

Even when content providers are thinking about calls to action, they are focusing on the big actions such as “contact us.” Until the user is ready to take those major steps they are left to wander around the website.

The solution: Always guide the user to the next action

It is important to consider the main calls to action for the entire site. Typically they consist of one or two major actions such as buying a product or completing a contact form.

However, there is also a need to think about the calls to action of each page. Avoid leaving your user with no obvious next step.

Take for example this page. Directly below this article you can take three actions:

Leave a comment
Provide feedback – That leads to videos offering a number of next steps
Read a related post

At no stage is the user left without a next action.

A big source of next actions is your information architecture. Unfortunately most navigation is not focused on users needs, let alone business objectives.

8. An organisational focused IA

An unfortunate side effect of running a content management system is that it encourages information architecture built around organisational structure rather than users needs.

If you look at most organisations CMS driven websites, their information architecture closely mirrors their internal structures. This is because it is easier to divide up responsibility for updating various parts of the site if it is structured along departmental lines.

The problem with this approach is that users do not think in terms of organisational structure. They are task focused and so often an organisational IA is entirely inappropriate. It leads to confusion and frustration among users.

The solution: Focus on user tasks

The only solution to this problem is to stop structuring sites around organisations and start focusing them on users.

Although it is easier in most content management systems to allocate permissions based on a per section basis, there is not normally a specific need to do so. It is just as feasible to give access on a per page basis making it unnecessary to organise around internal structure.

Ultimately your site should be about your users and that includes your IA. However, it does not stop there. The community you build around your site is important too.

9. No sense of community

Increasingly content management systems come with some great community tools. They have forums, comments and integrate with everything from Facebook to Twitter. However, great technology does not build great communities.

Many organisations implement these community features on their site and are disappointed when they are not used.

Worst still some organisations launch these features but moderate so heavily that users respond negatively. Eventually the functionality is removed entirely.

The solution: Build relationship not functionality

It is important to realise that online communities are about relationships and not technology. If you want to build a successful community around your website, you need to actively and regularly engage with users.

This involves having people within your organisation who are constantly talk to users, asking and answering questions, and getting to know people through open and honest relationship.

Of course, the problem here is the same as content production. This is not seen as an official role. Instead it often falls to enthusiastic individuals. If you want your community to succeed you are going to require passionate people who have the time and resources to sink into that community.

And it is a lack of resources that leads us to our final problem that content management systems cannot solve – single language content.

10. Single language content

The majority of invitations to tender Headscape receive for content management builds, request multi-lingual support.

In the end few of the sites we build actually make use of that functionality. In effect they are paying money for something they will never actually implement.

There are two many reasons for this.

The first is aspirational. Many organisations request multi-lingual support because they have dreams of expanding in the future and unfortunately those dreams do not come true. I can at least respect this viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with planning for functionality you might need at some point in the future.

However, the second reason is not so admirable. A lot of sites fail to implement their multi-lingual support because they have not fully thought through what that involves.

Implementing a CMS with multi-lingual support is easy. Creating a multi-lingual website is hard. You have to decide what content is going to be translated. You need to find a translator and then you also need to maintain that content over the long term.

The solution: Think twice before requesting multi-lingual support

There has to be a good business case for implementing a multi-lingual website. Unless you are sure that you are going to make money from a foreign market, it is probably not worth investing in language support.

If you aren’t serious about supporting other languages do not add it to your ITT, at least not as a primary requirement. There is no reason to rule out a CMS for not supporting multiple languages unless you are sure you are going to use that functionality.

Conclusions

You could interpret this post as a criticism of content management systems. That is not the case. I believe content management systems are a valuable addition to most websites. However, as I said at the beginning they are not the silver bullet may perceive them to be.

The success of your CMS is largely reliant on you being aware of its limitations and being prepared to deal with these restrictions. If you do then a CMS could be the best investment you ever make.

Podcast 58: Community websites Part 1

Posted in Classic shows on November 21, 2006 by Paul Boag

This week a somewhat jetlagged Paul discusses virtual communities with Marcus. In particular they focus on the tools available to community builders and the business benefits of social participation.

Podcast: Download (26.0MB)

Download this show.

To subscribe directly within itunes click here

Well, I am back from the Refresh 06 web conference in Orlando and feeling somewhat jet lagged. As a result this week’s show is far from coherent. However, I do get the opportunity to make Marcus envious so I guess it’s worthwhile.

Actually it’s a pretty good show despite everything. We discuss the benefits of meetups and conferences as well as looking at some of the upcoming events such as a North East Meetup arranged by our very own Dan Cave, and the BBC Backstage Christmas Bash happening in London.

The more conferences and meetups I attend the more convinced I am of their value. If you fancy getting more involved in these kinds of events I would highly recommend upcoming.org.

Our main subject this week is online community and social participation. It is a subject I have been promising to cover for some time and one I am particularly passionate about. As a result I have too much to share for a single show. That is why this week we focus on the tools at your disposal and the business benefits of communities. Next week we will move on to look at setting up and growing your community as well as motivating and managing your users.

Finally, we also manage to squeeze in a review of Twitter.com and take a quick look at the issue of multi-lingual sites (although this is something I would like to return to in the future).

Design for your CMS

Posted in Design on February 15, 2006 by Paul Boag

With next weeks podcast being on content management systems I have been thinking a lot about how they work. In particular, I have been mulling over the unique challenges they create when it comes to the front-end design.

One of the biggest areas of business for us at Headscape is the creation of design templates for content management systems. A lot of organisations have in house developers who purchase or build their own CMS but don’t have the skills to do the design work involved in the front end of the site. As a result, they come to us looking for help.

Over the years, I must have worked with dozens of different content management systems, all with their own unique constraints. I really have seen every quirk imaginable, from systems that only allow colours chosen from the web safe palette, to a CMS that insisted on a strict three-column layout for all sites.

However, probably the most universal problem with any CMS is that it gives the website administrator limitless control. "Isn’t that half the point of a CMS?" I hear you cry. Well yes, it is, but that doesn’t mean it can’t prove annoying if you’re trying to design the interface. Let me explain what I mean:

Limitless sections

Many content management systems give website owners complete control over the structure of their site including the top-level sections. This means they can continue to add sections until inevitably they break the design. This is especially true of horizontal navigation because you obviously want to avoid horizontal scrolling. To be honest your options are limited:

You instruct the users not to add top level sections or disable that feature.
You avoid horizontal menu’s entirely and design your site in such a way to allow for expanding of vertical navigation.
You create a horizontal navigation that wraps nicely when there are too many sections.

None of these options are particularly elegant, nevertheless this is something you need to consider carefully in the design stage.

Deep navigational structure

Of course, the problems don’t stop there. If a user has control over the structure of the site, it is also possible for them to create sections, within sections. With this kind of limitless flexibility, you cannot presume in your design that you only need to display one or two levels of navigation. In theory, your navigation has to be limitless.

This problem can be solved in a couple of different ways. One option is to show only the siblings, parent and children of any particular page. This works very well particularly when used in conjunction with breadcrumbs, however it does have some drawbacks.

Another approach is to use a breadcrumbs style of navigation. This is something I have covered before in my entry entitled "Dealing with complex navigation" so I won’t go into anymore details here.

Varying column heights

Of course as well as expandable navigation, there is also potentially endless content! With few clients following Steve Krug’s rule of taking your content and halving it, pages can get incredibly long. However, on other occasions it is common to find the navigation being longer than the body copy. With content and navigation being so flexible it is important that your design can comfortable expand or contract to fit what is there. The golden rule here is to test endlessly with different content and different navigation to see if your design breaks.

Ever-expanding names

With users having control over naming pages, another problem arises. As web designers, we have learnt that short snappy names for sections are much easier to read and digest. As a result, we tend to design on the assumption page names will be relatively short. However, you cannot guarantee this if the client has control over the site structure. Make sure you check that page names wrap nicely whether they appear at the top of the page or in your main navigation. Always design for the worst-case scenario and remember if your site is multi-lingual that some languages can have words considerably longer than their English equivalents.

Interchangeable boxes

Not only can the user control the site structure and page content but in many content management systems, they also have some control over the layout. This is often particularly true on the homepage where they can often reorder content "modules". This means any design that you propose has to be flexible enough to allow these "modules" to be moved around. The trick is to do this without the design becoming too blocky. I have found that using curved corners, overlaid imagery and removing borders can help to blur the lines between these "modules", creating a less boxy feel.

The evils of the WYSIWYG

Probably the biggest area of concern is the dreaded WYSIWYG editor. With this, a client can ignore all your lovely design rules and do whatever the hell they like with your page. This is probably the biggest danger area in content management design.

My recommendation is to try and persuade the client to swap out their CMS default editor with something like Xstandard. With this WYSIWYG the client enters content semantically rather than worrying about the design. In other words they tell the WYSIWYG that something is a heading and the CSS file defines its look, rather than the user defining the font, styling and colour themselves. Failing that it is important that the designer provide a very clear style guide covering exactly what is acceptable and what is not.

What’s your experience?

These are just a few of the challenges that I have discovered over the years but I would be interested to hear what your experiences have been? Which content management systems have you used and what problems have you encountered. What advise would you give to somebody designing for a content management system for the first time? Post your comments here.

Get yourself a great WYSIWYG

Posted in Reviews on July 22, 2005 by Paul Boag

While in the process of rebuilding the Headscape website, I have come across the ultimate in WYSIWYG editors for your content management system.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will know that I have been trying to rebuild the Headscape website for a very long time. One of the main reasons for a rebuild is that our current site does not demonstrate the web standards and accessibility experience that has become core to our company’s approach.

The problem with Content management systems

Of course, it is relatively easy to build a web standards site and ensure it conforms to the basics of accessibility but it is much harder to keep it that way. In my experience, it is the WYSIWYG editor that often lets you down. The whole point of having a content management system is to enable even those with no programming knowledge to make changes to their site. Unfortunately, the majority of content management systems rely on editors that provide the user with little or no help ensuring that the underlying code is clean and accessible. The result is that within days of launching a site becomes non-compliant and potentially no longer accessible.

An outstanding solution

Enter XStandard.

Unlike many WYSIWYG editor that rely on native Internet Explorer Active X components, XStandard has been built from the ground up to provide standards based code and highly accessible content. Not only that it has been beautifully designed to be easy to use and novice friendly.

Superb features

Just some of my favourite features include:

The user selects from a list of clearly named tags that define what content is NOT what it should look like. The designer’s style sheet then automatically controls the appearance of these tags.
Encouraging the user to conform to accessibility guidelines. Wherever possible it automates this process and if it cannot it prompts the user.
Enables drag and drop of both images and files directly from your desktop
Microsoft word documents can be copied directly into the editor and it cleans the code and marks it up appropriately.
It has a multi-lingual spell checker built-in.

The list above refers to the best features from the users’ point of view. There are also numerous benefits from the programmers’ viewpoint as well.

Responsive customer support

The other thing that particularly impressed me is their customer support. We have received fast responses to our email enquiries and they have done everything possible to deal with all of our queries.

Problems with pricing

I have only one criticism of the product and that is its pricing policy. The price is calculated on both user licenses and site licenses which gets very complicated especially when integrated to a cms that can generate unlimited numbers of users.

Highly recommended

However other than pricing I can thoroughly recommend this product. Not only will we be adopting this editor for our own site we will also be integrating it into all of our content managed sites moving forward. In fact I would go as far as saying that if you already have a content management system that uses another editor that you should seriously look at the possibility of retro fitting this editor into your site.

Multi-lingual web sites

Posted in Site content on August 20, 2004 by Paul Boag

Here is a scary fact. Did you know that you could be turning away 64% of your potential audience? OK, I might be stretching the truth slightly but I bet it makes you read on!

Did you know that only 36% of those using the internet speak English as their first language? I certainly didn’t until I came across the Internet World Stats web site.

The top ten languages are:

English (36.3%)
Chinese (13.3%)
Japanese (8.3%)
Spanish (6.8%)
German (6.6%)
French (4.2%)
Koran (3.7%)
Italian (3.6%)
Portuguese (2.8%)
Dutch (1.7%)
Others (12.8%)

But I only want to reach English speakers

Obviously if your web site and products are aimed purely at an English speaking audience then this does not apply to you. However I do have a word of caution. Don’t presume that just because your market is British that everybody primarily language is English. For example 26% of people in Wales speak welsh and also we have a very large number of ethnic minorities who would not consider English their first language.

But so many people speak English as their second language

True, but it doesn’t mean they want to have to. Also just because they can speak English doesn’t mean they find it easy. Why make it harder for people to understand your site. By translating your site into their local language you show a commitment to non-English speaking users.

So how do I go about translation?

If you are trying to reach a broader international market then translating your site into the appropriate languages is vital. However resist the temptation to use one of the many automated tools you find online such as google’s language tool. Although useful they are just not accurate enough to use on your site.

Where possible, the best option is to get translation done "in country". A native resident of the country you are trying to target will be able to pick up on the nuances of the way people speak rather than just providing a literal translation. This means your copy will seem more natural and easy to read. If you have ever read a Japanese video recorder instruction manual you will know what I mean. It may have been translated perfectly well into English but it can still be confusing and hard to follow.

Oh yes, a couple of design points to leave you with:

Make sure your design is flexible enough to accommodate more wordy languages. For example, the average German sentence is a third longer than its English equivalent.
Don’t use flags to allow people to choose between languages. If I am American or Australian I am not going to be happy clicking on a Union Jack to get to the English version.