PebbleRoad

When it comes to the design of intranets and large websites, the limelight is firmly on issues of taxonomy and navigation (info-seeking) and not so much on the final use (info-using) of the content, known as the target content. The focus is still on the library card catalogue and not on the book. In a book world, this is a non-issue; the book is a well-defined, structured entity. But in a web world, we have to deal with open-ended, heterogeneous content, which if not designed for use can be as detrimental to the user experience as weak info-seeking structures. This article describes a simple approach that can help improve the use of target content.

What is target content?

Target content is that content that provides a fair degree of closure to your information need. Examples of closure are, looking the post-match write up on the FIFA World Cup match between Italy-France, reading an article on the commuter train bomb blasts in Mumbai, getting details on travel and health issues when traveling overseas, knowing all about applying for financial assistance when applying to a university, etc.

I emphasized 'fair degree' above because one can never be sure of full closure as it is difficult to fully know the context of the info need. Different people come to the same page with different needs.

Jared Spool calls target pages “content pages” and states that they are the most important pages on your site.

It’s easier to understand the concept of target content when we look at the broader picture of what we do on the web. So here goes.

Seek, learn, do

There are three things we do on the web: 1) we Seek, 2) we Learn, and 3) we Do. For example, when browsing or searching, we are seeking. When reading and glancing we are learning, and when we are transacting an e-commerce payment or sending out an e-mail, we are doing. With the recent hype around search, it’s easy to forget that, in the end, we Seek to Learn and we Seek to Do. We rarely Seek for Seek’s sake.

Learn and Do represent target content.

The shapes are amorphous simply because that’s how we view them on the web – undefined, shapeless entities. Our main aim therefore is to better refine Seek so that we can better define Learn and better define Do – that’s our goal – to give shape to meaning.

So, if we are looking to learn the “side effects of a toddler swallowing a piece of camphor”, our web experience may be something like this:

We start out with horribly out of shape conditions, but with Google and a berrypicking strategy, we get a handle on the search space. At the same time, we get a slightly better grip on our needs with what is known as piecemeal content – droppings of knowledge about our need. It’s the stuff we find in bits and pieces here and there. In this space, Seek and Learn are in tight embrace. So we learn, but not enough to cause closure (and that’s why we keep looking).

The situation is different when we land on a document that explains the whole “toddler swallowing camphor” issue with enough detail so as to give us the satisfaction of a fair degree of closure. We stop seeking and just read and learn. We’re now in the target content space. Seek slips away; he has done his job.

This article is how to design the target content space for Learn.

The target content space for Do is the realm of forms, wizards, web applications, etc.  These will not be dealt with in this article.

Target content for ‘Learn’

There are two parameters that are inherent to the meaning of target content for Learn: coverage and proximity. 

Coverage & proximity

Coverage has to do with the quality of the info covered – right info in the right form. For example, BBC’s coverage of the FIFA World Cup matches was simply excellent. They extended the genre of a post-match report by having info like Trivia, Photo gallery, Virtual replay, Your views, etc. Good quality coverage.

Proximity has to do with having all the relevant info together, what James Robertson calls the “All together” rule. Thus, having all the forms and policies that are needed for staff to make a decision on hiring a sub-contractor should be in close proximity (if this activity is done on a regular basis); not scattered around the intranet.

More examples:

• Stock market quotes are target content as they bring enough info together and cover them in enough detail to satisfy closure in most cases.
• E-learning topics can be target content. The instructional topic genre (overview, practice exercises, group discussion, quiz, etc.) aims to satisfy both the coverage and proximity to bring closure to a particular instructional need.

As the examples show, target content can vary in granularity – form simple infographics and displays to more wholesome aggregations. It depends on how you want to view and make sense of it.

The intranet factor

Corporate websites and intranets, in the words of James Robertson, are worlds apart. These two entities are driven by different needs and achieve them through different means.

For one, coverage of target content on the intranet is more task-oriented than subject matter oriented.

So for example, if there is a new policy, the pertinent content is written in a manner to drive action. So you’d have things like…”what’s in it for you”, or “your next steps” or “do’s and don’ts” etc.

Secondly, since work has become complex, many departments are involved in every aspect of management. This brings in territorialism, where different departments vying to control of “their content”. As a result, proximity of the target content suffers. And because of this, staff have to manually build their own target content space by note taking, bookmarking or printing relevant material. For both the business and staff, this is a sheer waste of time.

This means that designing target content for the intranet is more important but at the same time a more difficult proposition. It has to be done with care and with the full blessings of a champion and/or leader. 

Pertinent, relevant, action

There are three parts to target content on the web:

1. the pertinent,
2. the relevant and
3. the action part

The pertinent is the expected info, the relevant explores the neighborhood of the pertinent and the action deals with stuff that can be done with the pertinent.

For example, viewing a post-match report is the Pertinent part, while viewing all post-match reports for that tournament or a country profile is the Relevant part and adding comments, or rating the post-match report is the Action part.

Note that the Action part is just links to the Do apps in question.

The following section covers these issues in more detail and also describes simple approach to tame your target content to provide a better use experience.

The 5-step approach

The approach starts with writing down the info need.

1. Write down the info need

You can write down the info need in terms of document genre (e.g. " read a post-match report" ) or in terms of as story or use scenario (e.g. "After going through the program materials, the prospective student desires to glance through the admission details for key dates" ).

Genres, stories and scenarios have a strong inherent property to attract and organize stuff around them. By stating them, you’ve excluded the irrelevant and included the expected.

So, by getting the info need correct, you’ve primed yourself for the next step, which is to list all the expected and relevant stuff – the attractors—around that need.

2. List the attractors

Here you’d get the right people in to the room and try to get a list of expected and relevant stuff on the board that can satisfy the identified info need. The content inventory or related print material, if available, can be a handy launch pad. But the real blast can come from having a deep and intimate knowledge of info needs. This can come by using simple user research methods such as observation, contextual inquiry, etc.

Needless to say that this is the most important step in the process.

Here are some examples:

And here are some intranet examples:

There’s another aspect that can influence the listing process—knowing if you’re dealing with a repeating structure or stand-alone structure. The post-match report is a repeating structure – there will be many post-match reports. The Admissions structure is a stand-alone. There could be one for undergraduate students and one for graduate students but it is still considered to be stand-alone.

Knowing the structure you’re dealing with can open up more possibilities, especially in the relevant stuff space. For example, in the Post-match report, you can add stuff like, “recent matches”, “overall standing”, etc. In order words, you can add Amazon.com kind of relations for repeating structures.

3. Map & wireframe the structure

If you think you’re going to land up with many pertinent pages, then it’s best to map the structure as shown. Note that I’m using Jesse James Garrett’s visual vocabulary here – in its true semantic sense!

The map increases the clarity of the situation and the wireframe plays out the situation.

Here are the actual screenshot from the BBC:

The mapping and the wireframing are essential because it all depends on the coverage you’re giving. The post-match report could look very different if the coverage was not extensive or was different.

Furthermore, here’s something that I’ve observed: note how all of the pertinent page links are all in the main page and not in the side navigation bars. The navigation seems to remain on the main page.

Here’s another example from IBM:

Here's one from Apple:

And based on that observation, here’s something that I’ve done on for a university:

4. Get into the details

It’s time to get into the details of each and every element you’ve identified. This is the component level (paragraph, heading, etc.) level stuff for all pages, and for repeatable structures you’ll need to include the metadata elements as well.

It’s best to keep step 1 in sight when doing this work. Focus is key here.

Here are some excellent resources on this step:

• Hot Text
• Web Style Guide, 2nd Ed.
• Elements of Style 

5. Test it out

Yes, test it out. You can never know what can slip through. HTML prototypes work best here.

Conclusion

Some may brush away target content, thinking it’s too trivial. They rather worry about taxonomies, metadata, navigation and search. But the fact remains that people use the branches to get to the leaves – the target content. And when they do, we designers will face our moment of truth! So, it’s best we tame our target content, lest it runs amok and spoils our taxonomy party!

(I would like to thank Patrick Lambe & Venkatesh Rajamanikam for their inputs on this article.)