The Content Management System Isn't the Enemy -- Unless It Is
5 min read
From Cole Camplese, Should it all be Miscellaneous?:
The idea that we can follow a book filled with instructions on how to do information architecture, web design, usability, and so forth may be crazy.
Some great conversations going on about structuring dialogue within organizations, and the inherent tension between freely flowing conversation and institutional control over the messages contained within that conversation, and the need for quality control over content affiliated with an institution.
In addition to Cole's post (linked above), D'Arcy Norman has a couple of good posts that provide some context.
D'Arcy and Cole both talk about the relationship/tension between the institutionally controlled (and provided) CMS, and the role of user created content in that webspace. As I see it, this is more of a design issue -- what mechanisms are you creating as you build your webspace to accomodate content from a variety of sources? A good CMS allows for easy interoperability, and good design exposes that interoperability to the end user in intuitive ways. While this isn't a conversation about tools per se, the limitations of of the underlying CMS play a factor here, but that's a different discussion.
As I see it, the following factors (among others, of course) need to be addressed in the design of an inclusive webspace:
- Low barrier to entry.
- Multiple points of entry for end users (ie, choices. A user can post from multiple sites, and push their content to the institutional web space).
- Tools for multiple ability levels -- some users will only want to use their own blog, while others will be perfectly happy using a tool provided by the organization. Both choices are perfectly okay.
- Guidelines and tutorials for posting to the system using both external tools, and publishing tools provided by the organization. At its most simple, this would include tagging guidelines, and links where external users could submit their rss feeds. This assumes, of course, a system designed to handle aggregation and embedding of external content.
- A governance model designed to vet content, and maintain quality control over critical areas of the organizational web presence. We're not talking about abandoning IA, or about turning the organizational webspace into Rome as enjoyed by the Visigoths; rather, we are talking about a system with clearly defined publishing workflows for content essential to the daily functioning of the organization (think admissions info), with rules and guidelines that permit the inclusion of quality content flowing into the system from external sources.
Within a new publishing model, the Information Architecture (IA) required/desired by the organization still has a critical role, but the IA realistically can't be extended over all content in all contexts. At a certain point, IA stops being an organizational tool, and something central to the user experience, and becomes a barrier to efficiency. This becomes especially true when IA gets extended into the learning space -- and the learning space/community building space is where "miscellaneous" needs to flourish freely.
Content management often gets dragged out as the punching bag here, but the problem has less to do with the CMS than it has to do with restrictive rules governing the use of the CMS. Some of these restrictions are, of course, designed into the specific CMS/platform, but all CMS's are not created equal, and it's important to separate the choices made by an admin/organization from what is actually required by a CMS. In many of the discussions I hear about freeing content for reuse, the definition of a CMS gets conflated with the rules governing its use.
It's also worth noting that the most secure system is one that is so complex that no one will use it. From a sysadmin perspective, that's great. No users vastly reduces the security risk, and virtually ensures that the IA will remain intact, and unsullied by user error. I'd love to see some good numbers on the amount of time used within organizations chewed up by end-user "training" (ie, here's how to work around security requirements) compared to support and outreach (here's how to immediately be productive using any of these freely available tools).
We're past the point where IA, publishing workflows, and quality control are mutually exclusive. The meaning of "managing" content has shifted. We can set up publishing workflows that direct selected content into an existing navigational structure, and the route can include steps for editing and approval. Allowing people to work with the tools of their choosing doesn't mean selling the farm and turning your organizational site into MySpace. Providing options for users, and allowing increased interoperability between these tools and the organizational webspace, requires planning. The barriers aren't technical; they are organizational. More importantly, the migration/flight away from the organizational enterprise is well in progress. While the IA of many organizations doesn't reflect this, the change is already occurring.
