Now, I left a comment and it was rejected because it was (respectfully) critical of the article. I said "This is a great post about content marketing strategy but has little to do with content strategy and nothing – and I repeat for emphasis – nothing to do with intelligent content. Classic mistake, and really degrades the complexity that goes into content strategy. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I see this all the time, and it is the first exercise that I have to run clients through to make them unlearn their misconceptions about what intelligent content is. I am really disappointed in this post."
I'm not suggesting that you be critical of the article just because I am. But I am (a) disappointed that this author is taking the Sarah Palin approach to dialogue (delete any dissenting voices rather than enter a dialogue) and (b) that she is so quickly working hard to turn intelligent content into some pablum under the content marketing rubric. I don't think it's doing any practitioner any favours!
I think it's better to reduce both tech and human resource overhead on comments as much as you can, and make the barrier to entry as low as possible; i.e., little to no need for signing up with something to leave a comment.
For CSF articles, as example, we don't use use comments via the CMS (too much tech overhead) or some commenting system (an account barrier), rather we add a link at the bottom to the associated post in the CSF G+ page and let people rant and rave their. Of course, G+ is not everyone's cup of tea, but we find the advantages from the lower overhead far outweigh what little comes from comments in general. The barrier to access is much lower, and Google provides some pretty nice tools for moderation. It's also a lot more dev and mobile friendly that way too.
The only thing I'm thinking we should do differently is share those G+ Page posts in the community here too, because there are way more members in this community than there are following the CSF Pages, so I don't think those posts get seen as much. I need to talk to our community manager on that, but it seems sensible to me at this point.
Anyway, to each community it's own method. ;)
Worst option: Developers enter some text on their own.
Marketing comes up with some text and gives it to the developer to enter.
UX comes up with text and give it to the developer.
Middle-of-the-road options (but not terribly efficient):
UX comes up with text and stores it in [one or more] resource files that the developers use to suck the text into the UI
TechComm comes up with text and stores it in [one or more] resource files that the developers use to suck the text into the UI
TechComm manages the UI text in a CCMS/HAT, which keeps the content coordinated with all the rest of the help content, and exports to an area where the text can get sucked into the UI
What are the variations you've seen and what do you consider best practice?
(Posting in general because I don't see an Events category)
Please add your own thoughts - I think it's an important topic, and deserves more insights than I've managed to provide.
I'd say that this applies to any content and doesn't require specific tools/markup. However, it's not what some people would have it mean: the way that writers put together sentences and paragraphs, or the way that they need to consider how content will be used in different cultures.
I think Joe Gollner has content strategy and content engineering as different but complementary disciplines, although content engineering does need to stem from a strategy of course.
- Concordia University
Integrator of content strategy, requirements analysis, information architecture, and content management to increase ROI of product lifecycle content. Supporter of content structure and standards. Founder of Intentional Design, Fellow of the Society for Technical Communication, accredited Cognitive Edge practitioner. Co-producer of Content Strategy Workshops. Co-author of Content Strategy: Connecting the dots between business, brand, and benefits. Co-editor of The Language of Content Strategy.
- Intentional Design Inc.Develop content strategies, UX, CM consulting, 2002 - present
- City of VancouverSenior Content Strategist, 2011 - 2012
- Intel, Trillium, LSS BC, Philips Electronics2000 - 2002