Josh Williams from Hot Studio had a great speech at Web2Expo on reshaping ebay.
The two outstanding feature were:
he gave a definition of “feel” in “look & feel”
he introduced a well shaped method called Interaction Audit
The feel is an interaction groove - “It can be click-click-click oder clickp-hover-type or click-scroll-type – it does not matter, as long as you don't start to turn a telephone in an airplane cockpit.”
The target of controlling feel is not only to attract the user, but also to make him feel comfortable, so that he can reserve bigger parts of his mental bandwidth for the content of a site instead of it's technology.
In the interaction audit (which aims to check and harmonize the feel), they started with
* defining some example workflows: what do users do, what tasks do they perform on the way.
* that led to a task-activities matrix to find out similar activities in different tasks.
* Detailed descriptions of both were collected in a database
* The number and the number of variations in the interactions are now a criteria o quality (links, tabs, forms, mouseovers etc. - 16 different types of reactions/behaviours after you click on a link, 5 different types of forms ertc.)
* in addition to interaction inconsistencies, also task inconsistencies were analysed
* object inconsistencies as well.
This was a base that could be used to define targets, go through the enterprise universe and clean up.
What makes this so great?
It's all about structuring – shaping and describing a problem is maybe not solving it, but it's a good start to avoid it in the future.
There is no common taxonomy or reusable usecase for that – it's up to us to create the best practices and to find innovative ways and solutions.
As long as you don't forget your goals, there are never to many details – all those small pieces (if kept in a clear structure) will help you understand new problems that will keep arising every day.
Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2008
Multilingual Sites
Andreas Ravn from namics.com just gave an interesting speech at Web2Expo in Berlin.
Some points that are remarkable to me: abbreviations, tag clouds, words without context are specific issues in multilingual environments. It's an additional challenge to actually identify the language.
Good or bad translation affects the author's credibility – that can be your own, if you are centrally talking to an international audience. Or it can be your partner's (and your author is your partner – or maybe even your customer) credibility; that means high responsibility.
It's not only about credibility, it's also about confidence, like and dislike, authority and reputation and respect – especially if you are an international enterprise talking to it's multilingual employees.
I should try to draw a model capturing and illustrating these complexities.
Several approaches to deal with the multilingual challenge are:
* laissez faire: contributors choose their language according to whom they want to talk. That's only feasible if you're working in a very decentralized environment and can afford to loos control.
* common ground: pick one language (eg english, or russian or spanish) and stick to it – the common thing then will be, that it's strange for everybody. It makes a big difference in this concept, if you have native speakers in the community or not; that also makes a big difference between the US and Europe.
One point I want to add, especially from the intranet point of view: Intranets are nowadays always user generated content.
That needs to be respected
* in creating the CMS and other means to create, deliver and manage content
* in talking to the authors and other contributors
* in considering language issues
That adds up to a multidimensional model of influences and dependencies:
who created the content (“professional” author, part-time contributor; headquarter representative, local employee; manager, expert...)
whom does the content address (local – international clientel; mandatory or optional information)
references: other contents (are they translated?), applications; what is the desired output (eg. prepare customer letters – use the correct wording in the local language)
communication clouds: who is talking how about this topic? where do you need a common language (application users and helpdesk, retail sales and customers, sales and controlling etc.) - sometimes translation can be an obstacle in understanding... (what does “preferences” mean in ukrainian? or romanian?’
The main question is actually: What is it we should translate?
Then you can answer the question how to translate, how to handle this process.
Some points that are remarkable to me: abbreviations, tag clouds, words without context are specific issues in multilingual environments. It's an additional challenge to actually identify the language.
Good or bad translation affects the author's credibility – that can be your own, if you are centrally talking to an international audience. Or it can be your partner's (and your author is your partner – or maybe even your customer) credibility; that means high responsibility.
It's not only about credibility, it's also about confidence, like and dislike, authority and reputation and respect – especially if you are an international enterprise talking to it's multilingual employees.
I should try to draw a model capturing and illustrating these complexities.
Several approaches to deal with the multilingual challenge are:
* laissez faire: contributors choose their language according to whom they want to talk. That's only feasible if you're working in a very decentralized environment and can afford to loos control.
* common ground: pick one language (eg english, or russian or spanish) and stick to it – the common thing then will be, that it's strange for everybody. It makes a big difference in this concept, if you have native speakers in the community or not; that also makes a big difference between the US and Europe.
One point I want to add, especially from the intranet point of view: Intranets are nowadays always user generated content.
That needs to be respected
* in creating the CMS and other means to create, deliver and manage content
* in talking to the authors and other contributors
* in considering language issues
That adds up to a multidimensional model of influences and dependencies:
who created the content (“professional” author, part-time contributor; headquarter representative, local employee; manager, expert...)
whom does the content address (local – international clientel; mandatory or optional information)
references: other contents (are they translated?), applications; what is the desired output (eg. prepare customer letters – use the correct wording in the local language)
communication clouds: who is talking how about this topic? where do you need a common language (application users and helpdesk, retail sales and customers, sales and controlling etc.) - sometimes translation can be an obstacle in understanding... (what does “preferences” mean in ukrainian? or romanian?’
The main question is actually: What is it we should translate?
Then you can answer the question how to translate, how to handle this process.
Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2008
Shaping a poor man's portal
Developing internal media for the banking industry is no fun at the moment, not at all. Medium term investements, even if their benefits are obvious, are cancelled if there is no plainly positive business case for the first year.
That's a common problem for now; so should we get used to it or should we try to wait for better times? One big problem, I guess, is that most of us did probably already wait for a few months or even a year: things have been slowing down before, thorough planning and 100% budget compliant planning were some of the biggest slowdown factors up to now.
So now I'm about to plan a redesign of a ten year old intranet that should not produce any costs, should not require too many emergency workarounds, should be manageable for average-skilled editors and should attempt to satisfy those need, that we identified as the drivers for a 1 Mio € project.
Sounded disgusting in the beginning. Now I think it sounds interesting. There is no other choice anyway.
That's a common problem for now; so should we get used to it or should we try to wait for better times? One big problem, I guess, is that most of us did probably already wait for a few months or even a year: things have been slowing down before, thorough planning and 100% budget compliant planning were some of the biggest slowdown factors up to now.
So now I'm about to plan a redesign of a ten year old intranet that should not produce any costs, should not require too many emergency workarounds, should be manageable for average-skilled editors and should attempt to satisfy those need, that we identified as the drivers for a 1 Mio € project.
Sounded disgusting in the beginning. Now I think it sounds interesting. There is no other choice anyway.
Early adopters – that's not us
Some ten to fifteen years ago when tech- and ebusiness-journalism evolved also in Austria we were frantically writing about new eras, great technologies and killer applications.
Well, the beginning was more moderated; the main topics were curiosity, content and communication.
As business pressure started to rise and advertising customers wanted to sell something (I still believe that they did not know what they wanted to sell, but they tried anyway), we also had to sell something in our stories.
In 1997 Bertelsmann started a digital tv project – we hyped interactive tv, ecommerce merged with soap operas and a revolution on the living room sofas. Nothing happened; just some boring technical tests. In 1999, the 3G-umts-licenses were auctioned in Europe. Telco companies paid tremendous money, we wrote stories on location based services, mobile tv, mobile commerce, mobile dating services and video conferencing. Nothing at all happened. In 2000, Telekom Austria and ORF closed a deal that did not mean anything – just some vague cooperation. And againg, nothing at all happened.
We were doing some more stories, were heavy users of some pilot applications (I especially enjoyed the mobile public toilet finder for London and Paris) and then got bored and went to something new.
Yesterday my wife who does not care at all about technology, told me that she will buy a new n-Generation 3G mobile phone, because she wants to use the gps navigation tool, use the phone as a mobile video camera and because she wants to use the mobile shopping guide features: “It doesnt matter in which city I am, it can always tell me the address of the next drugstore and show me a way with some satellite-pictures.”
I had not spent a thought on these services for years. I'm a heavy user of mobile email, sometimes I'm quickly browsing the mobile web for exchange rates, travel schedules or footballl results, but I don't spend any money in the mobile world.
I've just been making up my story. And it seems to be up to others to live it. - No problem; Im always finding new stories. We just should not forget that what seems like looking back may be a great outlook in the future: Ok, we invented the stuff, we've been there, done that. But others live it. And they tell us, if it works, if what we've made up makes sense.
And it's been a while since she has been asking for the ip-based tv-service of Telekom Austria, which finally had come out in 2006 (without much ORF-participation). Fortunately, it still does not work outside of big cities.
Well, the beginning was more moderated; the main topics were curiosity, content and communication.
As business pressure started to rise and advertising customers wanted to sell something (I still believe that they did not know what they wanted to sell, but they tried anyway), we also had to sell something in our stories.
In 1997 Bertelsmann started a digital tv project – we hyped interactive tv, ecommerce merged with soap operas and a revolution on the living room sofas. Nothing happened; just some boring technical tests. In 1999, the 3G-umts-licenses were auctioned in Europe. Telco companies paid tremendous money, we wrote stories on location based services, mobile tv, mobile commerce, mobile dating services and video conferencing. Nothing at all happened. In 2000, Telekom Austria and ORF closed a deal that did not mean anything – just some vague cooperation. And againg, nothing at all happened.
We were doing some more stories, were heavy users of some pilot applications (I especially enjoyed the mobile public toilet finder for London and Paris) and then got bored and went to something new.
Yesterday my wife who does not care at all about technology, told me that she will buy a new n-Generation 3G mobile phone, because she wants to use the gps navigation tool, use the phone as a mobile video camera and because she wants to use the mobile shopping guide features: “It doesnt matter in which city I am, it can always tell me the address of the next drugstore and show me a way with some satellite-pictures.”
I had not spent a thought on these services for years. I'm a heavy user of mobile email, sometimes I'm quickly browsing the mobile web for exchange rates, travel schedules or footballl results, but I don't spend any money in the mobile world.
I've just been making up my story. And it seems to be up to others to live it. - No problem; Im always finding new stories. We just should not forget that what seems like looking back may be a great outlook in the future: Ok, we invented the stuff, we've been there, done that. But others live it. And they tell us, if it works, if what we've made up makes sense.
And it's been a while since she has been asking for the ip-based tv-service of Telekom Austria, which finally had come out in 2006 (without much ORF-participation). Fortunately, it still does not work outside of big cities.
Dienstag, 9. September 2008
Centralized vs. Decentralized Intranets
The challenge I have to face currently, is to convince senior management (board level) that their own ideas are right. They are in fact: They want to harmonize their current intranets and replace these homegrown 10 year old solutions through a new state of the art platform.
Sounds simple: replace ten times operating and development costs through one, harmonize ten scattered editorial processes into one, gain efficiency, control, power, quality and security.
Maybe too simple: Nobody dares to really decide this issue. We are spending weeks and months in discussions, considerations, alternatives, business cases and evaluations.
There are tons of measurable advantages for intranets, ROI calculation is not an issue. But business cases for online media are never a matter of figures only – they are also a matter of belief. I never saw a business case that could not be torn into pieces using quite the same facts, but different assumptions.
How to measure efficiency in terms of fast and straight ahead publication, how to make sure that all relevant facts are considered, how to exclude known excuses?
That are just the common problems in creating business cases, but I feel that they are extremely annoying and especially their solution is becoming actually counter-productive if it deals with so obvious issues such as centralized vs. decentralized intranets?
Or can somebody please tell me something else?
Sounds simple: replace ten times operating and development costs through one, harmonize ten scattered editorial processes into one, gain efficiency, control, power, quality and security.
Maybe too simple: Nobody dares to really decide this issue. We are spending weeks and months in discussions, considerations, alternatives, business cases and evaluations.
There are tons of measurable advantages for intranets, ROI calculation is not an issue. But business cases for online media are never a matter of figures only – they are also a matter of belief. I never saw a business case that could not be torn into pieces using quite the same facts, but different assumptions.
How to measure efficiency in terms of fast and straight ahead publication, how to make sure that all relevant facts are considered, how to exclude known excuses?
That are just the common problems in creating business cases, but I feel that they are extremely annoying and especially their solution is becoming actually counter-productive if it deals with so obvious issues such as centralized vs. decentralized intranets?
Or can somebody please tell me something else?
Donnerstag, 4. September 2008
How to evaluate content managementsystems for the intranet
What are the most important topics in an intranet architecture, what are the most important features for Content Managementsystems to be used in an Intranet?
I just sent out a Request for Proposal to a longlist of vendors and I am now about to prioritize all the defined requirements. What I came up with as a proposal for further discussion is
- basic technology first (if its supposed to be java it shouldnt be .net)
- compatibility, scalability, integration features (content, applications and users as well as import and export)
- support (slas, guarantees, personal skills and qualities, regional distance/availability)
- basic business requirements (multitenant, multilingual, if required)
- workflows, roles and permissions
- roadmap, strategy, partnering models with vendors
- licensing models, licensing costs
- other commercial issues
- additional business requirements
It may be a little strange that the commercial criteria are so low in the ranking. In my opinion, the licensing costs really hardly matter. Vendors will offer you discounts that they almost pay you for buying their system, they will always be cheaper than their competitor. Id they are not and there is really a difference – then you should be alarmed.
The real costs will come up with additional tools and integration efforts – thats why integration features are my number 2, and support is # 3. Support and the personal relationship determin, how fast your developers will work – this will depend on how good documentation and support are, but also on how much they like the system and its consultants.
Business requirements and workflows are # 4 and 5 because they are important, but you can still fix things that are not ok – as long as # 2 and 3 are granted.
The roadmap is nice to know – you should make sure that you and your partner are going in the same direction.
You will have to pay for it, yes. But once youve paid, its over. Thats whz licensing costs are only # 6. And if # 3, 4, 5 and 6 are ok, you will be happy to pay.
So dont worry too much about prices, dont look at the big players only, listen to your developers and do care about personal relationships on all levels. If you get along with developers, project managers and CEOs, the project will be smooth and great.
What are intranets actually good for? ( they are your identity)
What is an intranet actually good for? - Well besides the fact that it is an invaluable tool, often the only or the most reliable source of information and a very cheap and efficient media, what – this is a very fashionable question, what problems does it solve for the enterprise?
- It is cheap and fast
- it provides many possibilities for control (if you really want to act out on that):who may see what when, who has read what when, when will what informationbe spread etc.
- its your voice – and if its done smart, it is the company voice – nobody else can talk to that wide range of employees.
The whole thing influences the image, the idea your employees have of your company – its not only the content, its rather the processes, the roles- and permission-management, the authoring policies that shape your employees perception.
so its not only a business tool (actually most intranets are not – they are just heading there), but it is the best communication media to deliver your vision and mission, your internal brand, the real company identity you have in your mind
I dont think these topics are important to determine whether you should have an intranet or not (does anybody seriously want to ask that question?). But it may help to keep them in mind, if youre considering how to do your intranet, how to address certain issues.
You cant tell people that your company is open minded and visionary, if your intranet is centrally run, publishes strictly business information only and spreads the look and feel and the usability on an early 1990s prototype.
You cant asko people to relate the fancy ads you are running to their everyday work life, if their daily work environment is so not fancy at all.
And you cant expect people to participate in anythoing, if you dont build your intranet for openness, communication, interactivity. This has to be done very dilitgently – you really need to know what you are doing and you need to invest a lot of thought in the processes in order to create a good experience for your people.
Get some experts, listen to their recommendations and let them go ahead. Dont try to follow the Ive read there something approach – your intranet is too valuable for that. It is your identity.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
Posts
