The math makes my head hurt already.

If any when you do manage to find a handful of solutions that you feel might answer your particular needs, your challenge will be in settling on one system out of many. How do you decide what stays and what goes?

Here are some of the top three myths that lead people astray:

Myth No. 3 — A CMS is ready “out of the box”.

General Perception:

Content Management Systems provide website administrators with everything they need to launch, manage, and maintain a website with little to no effort.

Reality Check:

Launching a website is never as easy as 1, 2, 3.

The level of effort and resources required to get a CMS up and running corresponds directly to the business requirements of the site, and size/complexity of the CMS.

Forget what was advertized on the box.

If you’re in a position where you’re still thinking about which CMS to go with, consider talking to customers who are actively using the software. Compare notes. Ask specifically about how key features worked for them or more importantly, what didn’t work for them and why.

This is a good opportunity to consider your own requirements for needing a CMS. It’s easy to get lost in all the hype and lose sight of why you needed it in the first place, so put your needs into writing and use your list as a guide post when evaluating features.

Myth No. 2 — Anyone can use a CMS.

General Perception:

“If you can use MS Word, you can use a CMS”.

Reality Check:

Understand that every CMS subscribes to a different philosophy when it comes to working with content. The methodology behind the workflow might make sense for one group and be totally alien to another, which makes it more difficult when you’re attempting to do feature comparisons (ultimately, they all follow a few common strategies).

It comes down to the User Experience.

You cannot legitimately equate the whole experience of using a CMS to something like MS Word. You can legitimately equate a feature of the CMS to MS Word (if it exists).

The User Experience between a system like “Joomla!”, “Magnolia”, or “Drupal” are dramatically different. I won’t get too deep into the how and why of things, but suffice to say that if your comparison between package was based only on side-by-side comparisons of their interfaces, you’d immediately see how different they are from each other.

Consider who will actually be using the CMS. Is it a group of developers or is it a group off general staffers tasked with the responsibility? Think about the end user here; it’s not the site visitor who will be directly affected by the CMS, but the people managing the content.

What kind of interface are they most comfortable using (WYSIWYG, form based, code)? Do any of them have working experience with HTML, CSS or a scripting language?

This is your red flag.

Stop.

Take a step back and look to your content team — get their input.

Myth No. 1 — A CMS should manage everything.

General Perception:

Content Management Systems are designed to manage all of a website’s content and features.

Reality Check:

Content Management Systems come in all flavours, but not one of them handles every facet of a website in an elegant manner (thus the reasons for Myth No. 2, 3).

I’m not quite sure how this myth started, but I’m sure anyone who has had the opportunity to work with a CMS understands this: there is an expectation that a CMS has the ability manage the content of every single asset, feature, function, or concept in a given website.

This is so – dangerously – far from the truth.

Think about it this way: Your CMS does not define your website.

Read that last sentence again. Memorize it for the next time you’re making recommendations to your clients or shopping around for yourself.

A CMS is designed to help you manage content, but unless engineered to be, two websites are never the same beast. Content volume, features, design, strategies can vary wildly, and so it is next to impossible to have a single CMS (out of the box) manage every aspect of a website without running into the need to extend, include plug-ins, or write unique code to support the site’s particular requirements.

Consider that feat the Holy Grail of all CMS.

Be realistic about what you need a CMS to do. Think about the content of your site, and if you haven’t already, consider bringing on a Content Strategist to help you define the Information Architecture.

An important thing you should try to understand is that you don’t need one tool to manage everything – in the real world, you need a toolbox full of the the most reliable, appropriate tools to help you manage your website content.

Things to consider when you do manage to find a suitable CMS.

It’s easy to get misled by the marketing and hype, and technical jargon around a CMS. If you can only remember three things before you start searching, keep the following in mind:

1. Find a tool that your organization can implement: Speak to your development team/IT to get a realistic scope on what it will take to get up and running.
2. Realize who will actually use the software: Most importantly, interview your content management group to find out what their expectations (and level of experience) is with a CMS or similar software.
3. Develop a content strategy: Interview the key stakeholders to find out what the common needs are, and what the business requirements are for the website – don’t engineer your content to fit the limitations of one tool.

Ultimately speaking, a CMS is just one tool for the task of managing the content of your website, and sometimes you need different tools to do the job. There is no doubt that finding the right tool is going to be an easy task – expect a difficult road – but with a little forethought, some planning, and a good understanding of your needs (not wants), choosing a CMS will be less painful in the long run.

Too Much of a Good Thing

“Copy Overkill” is essentially the tendency to overload a single page with too much copy — too much information, and in some cases too much of the wrong type of information. In the landing page project I described, one of the elements required as part of the A|B testing was a series of marketing messages and follow-up content that were to be finely tuned for specific verticals.

The writer was given a set of wireframes with a series of “blocks” in which copy was to appear. What the web-designer received was a content deck overflowing with copy and precious little screen real estate to contain it all (including all other design elements).

Now, the typical first reaction of a writer who is unfamiliar with how copy works online is to say, “Well that’s your job as a designer — you go make it work”. The second is to vehemently argue the validity and importance of keeping every word that was written in the content deck.

You can likely imagine the reaction and the ensuing conflict between teams. This can quickly turn into a project manager’s headache.

How Much is Too Much?

It seems that nearly every project I have been involved with suffers from this tendency. I’m hoping that one day I’ll luck out and not have to deal with this again (one can dream); in the mean time, it is difficult for a designer to argue with a writer about how much is too much or the validity of their words on screen. To make things easier for both sides, here are some ABCs that can help to determine the copy density for a given page:

Audience

Who is the target audience?

This is a fundamental question that needs to be answered before a single line of copy is committed — a good communication brief (sometimes known as the “strategic brief”) should answer this, as it is likely one of the key bits of information that was gathered at the outset of the project.

Without getting into too much detail about demographics and psychographics, etc. there is a significant difference between how much information one group prefers in contrast to the other. Understanding the target audience is key in determining the amount and type of information they prefer when reading a page.

Remember, we’re writing for the web, not a novel — and since we’re on the topic writing for the web, remember to that each word is worth pennies.

I know of one writer who would throttle me for seemingly diminishing the value of his fine words; however, the fact is that every word that appears in strategic areas of a page is worth something, especially if the site is part of a campaign leveraging SEM (search engine marketing) as a traffic driver. Consider too that the right verb can spur a user to action and direct them into the process of converting from a prospect to a customer (aka “conversion”).

Balance

What is the best balance between Design and Copy?

Typography is a discipline in design that copywriters tend not to observe — for most, it’s not a part of their job function; however, it is something that writers who are developing copy for a web-audience should attempt to appreciate, since good typography can help form a strong visual path to the desired action.

Web Typography is not necessarily the same as Print Typography — the principles are similar, but the application is where there are glaring differences. Writers should also consider the other elements and features that make up a given page (branding, navigation, visuals, etc). These elements when combined, dramatically reduce the amount of space in which to work.

The issue of real estate is compounded by the fact that unlike print, the visible real estate on screen can vary wildly, and so a web-designer has to look at a page in terms of segments:

1. 33% for initial messaging and brand exposure.
2. 33% for context and call to action.
3. 33% for the granular details.

The closest comparison would be that of daily news publications — there is only so much only so much space to identify the publication itself; only so much of the font page that can be devoted to the headline and visual; and only so much column space to deliver the story. On a newsstand this defines which paper a reader will choose.

I tend to invoke one rule that I carry over from my days in designing for editorial: “Write to fit”.

This rule shouldn’t be invoked frivolously. Editors invoke this as a measure of last resort when there is quite simply not enough room for all the words to work effectively. When it comes to the web, screen real estate is at a premium.

Be prepared: This will sound cliché, but as a designer you need to show the writer why his copy is not working rather than tell him it is not working. The proof is almost always on screen, and no — 7px type is not an acceptable solution.

Be sensitive: As with design, coming up with compelling copy is not an easy task — appreciate that a writer spends as much time agonizing over verbs as a designer spends over grids.

Context

Why is the user viewing your page, and how did they get there?

I’d like to think that every website is unique in some small way but the reality is often the opposite. The sheer volume of websites online today is staggering. Within a particular industry you might find thousands of similar sites, and within those sites a myriad of identical pages with each one saying the same thing as their competitor.

However your visitor (aka “prospect”) finds you, you need to understand the context around their visit.

If the particular page is part of a targeted campaign with an SEM strategy, you can expect that they’ve found your page through results or other traffic drivers purchased for that reason. This is a pre-defined path with an expected purpose and resulting set of actions (abandon or convert).

If a visitor comes to your site cold (e.g. no identifiable referral or metric), you can assume they are searching for “something”. You need to help the visitor determine what that “something” is — and quickly.

This is where copywriting comes into play. The behaviour for most users (especially if they’ve only stumbled onto your page), is to start scanning for key words and phrases that might help them orient themselves. I’m treading pretty close to talking about SEO here, but it’s unavoidable given the current topic.

Some key considerations:

1. Your positioning statement or value proposition should answer their need — they came searching for something, so your content needs to address their query with an appropriate response.
2. Lighten up — dense blocks of copy are intimidating and visitors shy away from these in favour of bite-sized phrases and sentences. In web as with print, readers tend to “see” blocks of grey rather than areas with “lots of copy”.
3. Draw clear relationships between copy on page — clear communication builds trust, and showing strong relationships between blocks of information tells a user that your content is well thought out and authoritative. You’re not attempting to over-sell the subject of the page.

There are at least half a dozen other factors that will help to determine if you resonate with the unknown visitor or not, but having the right amount of copy will help to make that task easier.

Conclusion

Finding the right balance between copy and design for a website is never going to be easy, and there will be  struggles between both, but it doesn’t have to always have to be this way. Consider how you can work with your writing to team to create an effective balance, and when push comes to shove, remember who it is you are writing for.

Here are some additional articles that I’ve found useful:

The Elements of Style for Designers by Christina Wodtke

Writing Content that Works for a Living by Erin Kissane

Reviving Anorexic Web Writing

Mr. Armstrong opens with a fairly provocative statement:

You may have noticed that in certain business and marketing circles there exists a “backlash” against the design community. Despite the rise of attractive, user-friendly solutions, in such circles unattractive designs have somehow managed to remain at the verge of acceptance.

There are two things I would like to note about this broad-reaching statement: the backlash is not against the design community, but rather the agencies, vendors, and consultants. More specifically the backlash is a direct response to service-providers who are unable to provide solid end-to-end solutions to answer key business and marketing requirements.

Good or bad aesthetics aside, a business to business (B2B) or business to consumer (B2C) website that provides leads or successfully converts a prospect to a customer is more valuable by the simple fact that it does what it was intended to do: to market or to convert.

No amount of “business speak” by a designer agency/vendor/consultant can compensate for a poorly conceived product.

“Pretty doesn’t mean effective: statistics are your friend!”

Mr. Armstrong makes some good points in the article, the most notable — I believe — is this first guideline.

It is true that statistics are definitely your friend, but you have to be very careful on how you interpret the statistics.

The example given compares two websites from dramatically different industries. The first, 2Advanced Studios, is a design firm while the second, Perry Marshall is an author’s site. You might argue that they have similar business goals in mind, but the reality is that you cannot effectively compare these two businesses and glean true insight into what works and what does not.

Comparative statistics should be taken from competitor websites within the client’s industry or a related industry.

The adage: “What’s good for the goose…” does not apply here.

When refreshing an existing business website, your client will usually have a number of pre-conceived goals in mind.

The most typical goals are:

• Improve sales
• Capture more leads
• Build awareness (brand, industry issues, products & solutions, etc).
• Foster brand trust and build brand equity.

Your client’s business goals should be your Rosetta Stone when interpreting and establishing your baseline metrics for success, and at this point aesthetics are a non-issue. This segues into Mr. Armstrong’s second guideline…

“Every design should have a measurable goal”

I have a particular issue with this statement:

Saying that the goal is to “build the brand of XYZ” or “create an online presence” is basically meaningless to a business-minded person. A goal is only a goal if it is measurable.

I agree that brand building might seem ephemeral and subjective, but there are quantifiable metrics for this — it does have meaning for a client.

A smart business will have clearly defined what constitutes effective brand recognition and build their brand’s equity on these definitions. The brand-building activities and their results are quantifiable (see “build brand awareness, Foster brand trust…”) — “Build the brand of XYZ” is a legitimate business goal.

That aside, “measurable goals” should be a reflection of the business goals, and if you can answer the challenge from a design perspective, and provide insight through incremental testing, etc. you will have built a stronger foundation for the client to determine their success metrics.

“Your site should have one clear path”

Mr. Armstrong suggests that:

As a customer comes to your site, you want to be in complete control of the 1st thing they see, the 2nd, the 3rd, and all the way down until they accomplish your goal that you’ve set. In other words, they have entered your sites “funnel” or “chute”.

In a perfect world we would all build sites that work on this principle. The reality is that entry points into a website vary from user to user, campaign to campaign, and search engine to search engine. The notion of strictly engineering the site to control your users and their behaviour is akin to trying to catch the wind.

On a business site, the most overlooked exercise is to determining what the audience wants from the website and compare it to what the website actually offers. What you should expect is a handful of common use-cases which illustrate the behaviour of the target audience and how they truly interact with the website.

If your client’s website offers only one service or product, then the primary audience will likely follow one common path, and Mr. Armstrong’s proposition can ring true; however, if your client’s website offer’s multiple products and solutions to several key audiences, the most effective thing you can do is develop a user-interaction strategy to help users qualify themselves quickly and funnel them to the right place regardless of their entry-point into the website.

E.g. from a user’s perspective: “I am this type of user, and I am looking for this type of content.”

Whatever strategy you take, the execution should remain simple, effectively changing the principle to : “Your site should drive your traffic effectively”.

“Provide performance metrics”

I would consider this an irresponsible statement:

Finally, if you really want to impress business people, put together a little report of how a design performs. It doesn’t have to be fancy — maybe a little spreadsheet (those business types do love Excel) with some basic metrics you can pull off of Google Analytics like visitors, time on site, most popular funnel path, and even a goal conversion rate.

I definitely agree that providing post-launch metrics are an effective means of helping to justify or support certain design decisions on a website, but this needs to be put into serious perspective: a responsible designer Agency/Vendor/Consultant will look first to ensure that the metrics support the design recommendations as it applies to the business goals.

To be clear: look to the business goals of the website FIRST — design decisions when it comes to websites should be considered with an eye towards better usability to support those business goals.

My biggest point of contention with this last guideline is that metrics are interpretive and can easily be used to disguise a poor architecture or site user-interaction strategy.

The value of certain metrics are largely determined by type of website, which in many cases is a reflection of the fundamental difference between a E-commerce website vs. a Lead Generation website. “Traffic Volume” for one site does not equate to “Lead Capture” on another.

Simply providing a spreadsheet and some screen captures is a easy way to obfuscate or skew the meaningful metrics. Be responsible and avoid polluting your client’s metrics without providing a deeper understand of the ‘why’ behind the numbers.

Conclusion

What the last section of Mr. Armstrong’s article should have proposed is:

Much of the time, “business speak” can (and will likely) hamper true conversations and discussions around meeting business goals. I would suggest that rather than effect pretence, speak plainly.

When you are engaged with a client to develop or refresh their website, it is your responsibility to educate yourself and your client about what constitutes good design as it is applied to their project, and ultimately how the goals are quantified.

This is how an agency/vendor/consultant can add true value for a client.