The most difficult thing about UX design is not creating the experience, but making sure it gets delivered as conceived. Whilst it might be terribly easy to blame the developers, or worst still the client, the reason why delivery may not match the concept is a little closer to home.

A shared vision?

The truth is: there is rarely a shared vision or understanding of the end experience amongst all parties. This is not down to the abilities of the UX designer, but the way in which the experience gets communicated. We have come to rely on a set of tools and documentation that instead of giving a unified view, allows different people to project different outcomes from it.

So I found myself nodding furiously at Jeff Gothelf’s article Lean UX: Getting Out Of The Deliverables Business, calling for a more agile UX process less defined by the deliverables. We have trained clients to believe that the value lies in the documentation itself, demoting the UX to a sign-off phase. It means we disengage decision makers at the very point their input is most crucial.

we disengage decision makers at the very point their input is most crucial

Whilst we have been advocating this ‘rapid-prototyping’ approach for some time it does not remove the need for documentation altogether, but we do need to create a better understanding of its purpose and application.

Communicating the vision

Our stock-in-trade site map, wireframe and visuals are very poor at communicating the vision to a user or stakeholder, but are essential for documenting it. I link this to the electrical wiring diagram for your house. The electrician needs it, but you just need to know that all the sockets are in the right place.

Some document types and techniques are great for concepting, but not great for sharing. We need others to describe the user context we are designing for (semantic arguments aside see Helge Fredheim’s articles on Why User Experience Cannot Be Designed). Neither promotes the shared vision we need – although they are vital to making sure we understand the users’ mental models. This is where the interactive prototype, the video and the storyboard come in. They are real and give the reviewer a true picture of the end experience. It’s an approach more akin to the way advertising agencies and TV producers work and more in tune with the kinds of digital assets we are making now. It is only with this more accessible view that a proper assessment can be made as to whether the experience meets both the needs of the user and the demands of the business.

This is where the interactive prototype, the video and the storyboard come in. They are real and give the reviewer a true picture of the end experience.

Where has this come from?

As UX professionals we are used to working with closed, task based infrastructure systems, led by technology constraints or a CMS – basically desktop applications and websites. This is where the documents have evolved from, as they define and codify the closed system and how a user interacts with it. If this is the context we are designing within, then the more ‘traditional’ approach fits. It gives the blueprint needed to make sure that the end result is usable and fit for its purpose.

The thing is these infrastructure builds form a very small proportion of today’s UX output. The adaptive design of content-led sites and mobile or social apps needs a different approach. As does the creation of rich content. We also need to build a proper appreciation of how the UX reaches beyond the interaction with the technology or content itself, to interact with other systems and the physical world.

No one size fits all

The key, as usual, is in avoiding the one size fits all approach. It’s not about throwing out the tools and techniques we have honed, but knowing when and where to apply them. An ‘agile UX’ approach has a place in this but is not a solution in itself. We need a flexible, fluid framework that focuses on the specific experience, within the specific context, to bring the vision to life.

A new order

So perhaps we need to turn it all on its head. Perhaps it’s time for a new order where the site map and wireframes are the end, not the start point. Where content creation, prototyping and storytelling take point in a collaborative process that unifies the user, the designer, the developer and the brand in a shared vision.

Please, please, please could we stop talking about content strategy as if it only applies to the web design professional. The impact of content and user experience go far wider and should be at the heart of everyday marketing practice.

Reading Jonathan Kahn’s brilliant article on A LIST Apart, I couldn’t help being struck by how the debate around content strategy still seems firmly rooted in the realm of web design and development.   Now don’t get me wrong, you’ll find no bigger fan of content strategy as a discipline than me .  As a user experience practitioner I am fascinated by the way content strategy is driving the agenda for how we create and maintain compelling web experiences.

Perhaps it’s the wider perspective working for integrated agency affords, but I can’t help feeling that we are missing a trick. Surely we need to drag content strategy out of shadows and beyond the domain of the aloof web specialist (come on, we know we are!) and position it firmly into the core  of everyday, contemporary marketing practice.

In another article I once wrote I made the argument that content strategy goes beyond the constraints of the web site, to all digital touch points and all digital content. The rise of the social web and democratisation of content creation, calls for a new breed of content strategist, one that is dedicated to monitoring, aggregating, contributing and shaping content about the brand in all its digital guises. I believe we work toward a model for shaping content strategy as a means for understanding which conversations to invest in. This argument is being taken further to suggest that ‘user experience’ needs to extend not only to all media, but the gaps in between, Samantha Starmer starts this debate most eloquently.

In this context we see that content strategy goes beyond just the preserve of the digital specialist. We need  to call on the insight into consumer behaviour brought by the ‘traditional’ planner; the detailed understanding of connection and effect, through data;  the appreciation of consumer mental models and demands through search; and the subtleties of the social specialist to build a framework for interaction.

Perhaps, ironically, could the semantics be to blame for keeping content strategy niche? The strongest illustration being what we actually mean by the term content.  By most definitions a TV ad is content, words are content, YouTube video is content, comments and blog post are content – it’s hardly useful . Perhaps we should be thinking more at differentiating by what content does. Is it branded content that informs and compels? It is search content that attracts and directs? Is it conversational content that drives participation? In this way we can link content to its intended behavioural outcome, rather than its make-up or taxonomy.

So is there a wider view?

I think so. I think we need to see content strategy as being part of a wider content ecosystem.

Content strategy is concerned with the systems and processes for structuring, organising, managing and creating the content. As such it is closest to the traditional user experience professional.

Editorial strategy is then concerned with what to say and to whom. It covers messaging, themes , topics, points of view and how they are expressed. As such it is closest to the writers and search specialists.

Content marketing covers how to drive conversation around content. How to use it to attract attention, engagement and participation. And as such closer is to the traditional communication and   marketing professional.

In conclusion brands and their agencies should no longer dismiss content strategy as something the web guys do. It’s at the very heart of modern marketing practice and should be embraced.