Had some interesting insights as I was working on a project for a national
voluntary organization this week...
They have a Web site at present, and it's not good. Not good at all. I've
been brought in to fix it. The clients recognize that it is deeply flawed,
but can't really pin down the essence of its shortcomings. So part of my
contract entails an initial "analysis and recommendations" component.
As I wrote my report, I resorted to frequent "printing" analogies --
comparing site development to the preparation of a printed document --
because that's the milieu the clients best understand.
In this context, I found myself writing a section that really got me thinking:
******
As is the case with many voluntary-sector Web sites, your
current site attempts to encapsulate nearly every aspect of your
operations and activities. In a single "document" you are
addressing:
1. Educational programs you offer
2. Training programs for professionals you offer
3. Archives of papers published
4. Fundraising activities
5. Special promotions
6. Contact information
7. Administrative information
8. Related links
[snip]
I think it is safe to say that the Council has never previously
published so complex and lengthy a document. Especially not in
a medium with which your staff is largely unfamiliar. Yet that
is what your site represents: the biggest, most widely
distributed publication you have ever produced.
I have a copy of your 1997 Annual Report here. You evidently
spent a substantial amount of money on it, and employed the
services of outside graphic designers, copywriters, editors and
printers. Based on my experience in the print industry, I would
estimate a total investment of at least $30,000 and two months'
preparation, minimum.
This document will be read by, at most, a few hundred people,
and will be out of date in a few months. Yet considerably more
effort and money was invested in it than in your Web site, with
its much greater complexity and wider distribution.
*Here* is the fundamental flaw in the site: you have not
approached its creation with the "seriousness" that it most
certainly merits. By assigning responsibility for its
development to your inhouse systems administrator, you have
relegated it to the category of a "computer issue", rather than
acknowledging it as the mission-critical communications tool it
actually is...
********
So anyway. I guess you see my point. It seems to me, after much
thought on the matter, that this is the fatal flaw of a great majority of
sites both large and small: their designers lose sight of the fact that a site
is a very complex (and important) *document*, albeit a non-linear,
hypertext one.
They get sidetracked into thinking it's a graphic design showcase, or an
interactive "experience", or cheap advertising -- when ultimately it is a
*document* that is meant to be *read*. Far too many sites, even big
expensive ones, seem to be little more than capricious assemblies of
randomly selected material, tossed into some kind of ill-considered order;
all the effort has gone into designing flashing buttons, neat Javascript
tricks, and so on.
A successful printed document requires the services of numerous
specialists -- writers, editors, designers, printers -- all of whom contribute
their skills to creating a logically structured and cohesive sum product.
A successful Web site needs such specialization and coordination too, with
the added wrinkle that it also requires the input of technical specialists
who understand how the "document" travels around the internet, how
reading documents on a screen differs from reading them on paper, and
how to connect the document to resources such as databases.
As a further complication, this complex, critical document will look very
different to different readers: they will be viewing it on different-sized
"pages", with different-colored "ink", and may or may not be able to see
the pictures you spent so much time crafting.
But a site is still a *document*, in my view. A user should be able to surf
a site the same way he can "navigate" an annual report or encyclopedia or
magazine: he should always know here he is, what he's read so far, and
what remains to be read.
Anway, I'm running out of time and steam here. No doubt others will have
comments :)
-----------
Brent Eades, Almonte, Ontario
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Town of Almonte site: http://www.almonte.com/
Business site: http://www.federalweb.com
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
