 We're going to try to get started on time so we don't run out of time and we can get to all of the topics that we wanted to cover today, so welcome, thank you for coming. This is a panel on content strategy. I'll let everyone introduce themselves, but I am Pam Barone, I'm a client service manager for Previous Next, which is a Drupal shop in Sydney. I am also a former content editor at a number of media websites that had horrible content experiences, sort of lack of a content strategy and so ever since I've come on to the other side of the fence, I've been really, really interested in this topic and how we can empower our clients to fix it. So I'll let each of you introduce yourselves and if you could maybe just talk a little bit about sort of how you do content strategy in your job and sort of what your area of interest is. Okay, hi everyone, I'm Angus Gordon and I work for Weave. Weave is an agency here in Melbourne and we basically do two things. We do content strategy and we do Drupal, so I'm a content strategist. How I do content strategy as part of my job really depends a lot on the project, but I guess something I'm particularly interested in is using the inherent capabilities of Drupal to produce really, really great content experiences and I guess that's something I'll be talking a bit more about in a talk this afternoon, so I won't get too much into it here. Hello, I'm Susan Cowan, I'm the owner of Weave, Angus is our lead content strategist. The way I do content strategy is in many respects just helping Angus, but I'm kind of at the pointy end as I'm the person who sells it and so that's a whole other skill that we can get into a little bit later on. Just starting in 2015, I've moved the agency from what we would have called probably a digital agency with a Drupal focus and some content strategy. I've decided to bite the bullet and we're pretty much a content strategy agency now with some Drupal, so that's us. Hi, I'm Michelle Stevens from Technocrat, I'm the chief strategist there which means I do anything that comes to mind, probably annoy most of my developers. I approach content strategy more from a discovery perspective as in my view navigation is simply static search and search is really the core of what we do on the internet now, it is about what you're looking for and how those results return. It could be said that I no longer believe in home pages and I prefer dynamic creation of content on the fly, so that's what we're specialising in at the moment. I think the first thing to sort of cover off is the four of us obviously very strongly believe that content strategy is a very important part of your content management project and I think a lot of us have had that sort of moment where you get a project and you're starting the project and your client sort of says, well no, you're building the Drupal site, we'll handle the content, that's not something you need to worry about, build the site, when it's done you call me and then we'll start entering the content. Well, that often works out very badly, it rarely works and it often works out very badly, so I guess if you could each do sort of your elevator pitch about it, I mean it's sort of hard to believe sometimes that we still have to explain this, but we still have to explain this, so. I guess my elevator pitch is really to those of you who are in agencies when you're selling projects to clients that every client has a pain point around content and that might be SEO, it might be accessibility, it might be a pain point they don't realise they have yet because they're planning a huge migration of content from, say, a static site to a Drupal site and they're somehow expecting that migration to just magically happen and also as Pan pointed out, the content will magically get improved at the same time it's being migrated, so really the way to pitch content strategy is really to find out what people's pain point is around content and really emphasise that content problems don't solve themselves, that they really need to be thought about early in the project at the same time as you're thinking about technology and design and all the other things that we think about. Well, my elevator pitch is often to developers, they've been my best source of work, or our best source of work, so in organisations replatforming and the developer having that content is a pain point for them in any large development, we now find that developers are very kindly selling us in to their clients to help with that pain point, but talking directly to clients, it is definitely about the pain points and often if people have been down this path before, they know that they might have had a lot of, they know that in a big organisation in particular, there's not one person who owns all the content, the content is owned by all of these individuals and they're quite siloed and they're quite precious, I think an intranet is probably the very best example of that, and really offering the service where you can, that content strategy itself, well as we said, no one ever asked for a content strategy, really, they want something else, that actually engaging all of those content owners can be the role of a content strategist and that can be in itself quite attractive to an organisation. Would like to be a little bit more controversial with the people that we approach. I really don't think that there is any one person or most people in any organisation really don't know what's on their site. One of the very first things that you need to do is to re-engage your clients with what is actually there. You're probably looking at the content administrators or content editors as being the only people who really understand what is actually on that site. A good damn scraping is what you need to do to actually get it into some format without pictures and navigation to help people understand exactly what they've written over a period of time. Many sites are there for two to three years and they grow organically and mapping breaks, journeys break, no matter how great we are at personas in the beginning. So take the content off, do a good scraping, get it into Excel and have everybody sit down and have a look through it and see whether it actually makes sense and the chances are it won't. So that is the best way in my view to sell content strategy. It's probably a little bit of a cold fish approach to how you introduce people to this stuff, but they really need to understand what it is that they have and where those holes are before they can start filling them in. I agree. I think that what happens a lot is that clients know they have a problem, so they know our website isn't doing something right. Let's build a new CMS and all of our problems will be solved. And I think it's a similar thing with accessibility where they'll say, well, we have a requirement that content editors can't enter content that's not accessible. And you go, well, that would be great. Unfortunately, it's not the case. So I think the same thing really shows in CMS projects. And I know that we struggle as a really technical sort of development focused shop. We struggle a little bit with achieving the balance, because I think it's really easy to take something and run with it. And then at the very end, have something that you didn't really think through. So I guess maybe you can answer this Angus, but if someone comes to you and says, right, help, what's the first thing you do with maybe like a big government organization that has a really big website with a lot of old content, no one really knows what's there. And no one really knows. I think a lot of the government projects specifically that we work with, it's sort of like they have a budget. They know they need a new website, but they don't really have any more of a vision than that. Yeah, I think the first step is often exactly what Michelle said is that inventory that and you know, it takes you a little bit to a bit of a while to realize that most people genuinely don't have any clue what's on there on their website. And they forget about it five minutes after it's published. So it's even the content authors often don't really understand their full site. So just being able to and there are tools you can use to do an automatic spider of a website. So we use one called Screaming Frog and there are several, several, several ones out there on Screaming Frog. It's great. Yeah, it's really it's super expensive too. But yeah, it's really valuable. You know, I'd say the bare minimum if you if you have if you have the budget and the time to do a full page by page content audit where you look at every single page on the site and evaluate it by, you know, criteria of quality and whether it's up to date, whether it's needed, whether it fits in with the overall sort of game plan of the new site and so on. That's the ideal situation. But I'd say the bare minimum you should do is at least get in a position where you know how much content there is on the old site and what broadly what types of content are there and what how much of each. So you sort of know what you're dealing with as a starting point. So that would be my that would be my first step in almost every project. Another thing in here. In 2012, the BBC actually based launched an ontological based site. They've moved all of their site over to this kind of structure. It's called Dynamic Semantic Publishing and it bases itself on link data and hubs to pull the content together. When you actually ask a client to start looking at their content and you want to give them a new strategy, you need to give them a reason why. The BBC found that using ontologies, which is say sports, which have football, archery, etc, etc. You can find a case study on it. Actually, see me later for a case study. The BBC actually found that creating these sorts of aggregated sites when you're actually working with content was far better for search and it actually created more things that people were looking for on that back end. So rather than look at content strategy from a static position, do try and look at it from the position of who's looking at it, what are they looking for and how are people actually finding their way through that content. In the majority of sites, you'll find that their internal search engine isn't even working. No one really uses it and Google is the only way or step into that site. So in that particular case, that's one very good way to actually get people to really have a good look at whether or not the functions of the site are working. The BBC, whilst it isn't a very pretty site, worked tremendously well. The first test that they did for that was the Olympics for 2012 with Team GB. So do have a look at the case study and I think it will assist greatly. As far as government is concerned, my two favourite sites in the world, Utah.gov and Hawaii.gov, they really look at this whole content strategy structure and bring it alive whilst using really beautiful images from both states, very, very different, very beautiful. Governmenttech.com is another good site to look at to really get a good idea of how to approach big, well, not so exciting content and accessibility too. And I suppose our poster child is for content strategies, gov.uk. However, the imagery isn't, well, it just isn't. But I think that will change. I think there'll be pressure to change that. But when we first saw that, it was just marvellous just to see content at the forefront with very little imagery because people don't necessarily think of images as content. It's just beautiful imagery. Images are content. But gov.uk started completely stripped back and I don't think there was any, I don't think they could have actually done it if it had been also a very visually beautiful site. It's visually beautiful to us because it's all about content. It did win a design award. What's great about gov.uk is that you can read, they're very, very public about their whole process and using agile methodology around content creation, not just around development. And this kind of laser focus on user tasks. There's a UX person called Jerry McGovern, who some of you might know of. And his sort of big thing is that websites are about effective websites deal really well with top tasks. And most organisations have sort of six to 12 tasks that account for about 80% of their visits. And if you can actually make those top tasks work, you're going to be satisfying a really high proportion of your users. And what Jerry McGovern says is that we shouldn't even really be talking about content, we should be talking about tasks and helping people complete tasks. So I guess, you know, most of the time in content strategy, we're not talking about content for its own sake, we're talking about using content to a wider, to a broader goal, which is helping users actually do things. Can we just say as well that gov.uk had an absolutely massive, was a massive job. It combines every government site in the UK into one site. And I think the next is the next level is, I don't know what they call it, whatever the next level of government is, but it combines the whole of the federal government information into one site. So it was massive. And as a content strategy, it was enormously successful, because I think they actually managed to roll it out in, look, I'm going to be wrong. I think it was something ridiculous, like eight months, or something tiny, not years. They got to, they had, I think, what they called an alpha version or something very, very quickly. So it's a very agile style process that they use, and they're quite open about the fact that some of their content is beta content. Your content doesn't need to be perfect before you push it out. Also, if anyone has any questions, feel free to come up to the mic, or if you want to just tweet a question using the Drupal South hashtag, I'll check for that, if you don't want to go up to the mic, but so who here would consider themselves a developer or technical person? Nice. What about sort of more salesy type roles? Don't be shy. No judgment here. And then who is sort of on the on the client side, who's here to anyone, like a content writer, you're strictly doing content for websites? Any content strategist? Yes. One of the, yeah, we should schedule them off. One of the things that's really interesting about, and you each touched on it, I think that content is really the thing that brings together the strategy of an organization and the kind of digital path. So I find a lot of times that you, you know, you can't have a content strategy without having a strategy. So do you face that a lot where you come into an organization and they say, right, so what's our content strategy going to be? And you say, well, what are you trying to achieve? And they say, what do you do that? Well, and I think a lot of the time, just as we probably all have the experience that we go into build a website for an organization and we sort of ask them, well, who are you and what do you do? And they don't even know the answer to that. And building a website can become a process for them of sort of working out their identity a lot of the time. And I sort of feel that it's, it can be the same with content strategy and overall strategy, that the content strategy can actually be a path into working out, working out the overall strategy. Because if you know what you want to say to people, that goes a long way towards working out, I guess, what your overall, what your overall strategy is, I don't know if you. Yeah, I think what is the success metric? Every strategy has to have an outcome, you know, you're not going to actually put a whole pile of money into something that you actually have no response for. Those success metrics and helping people understand what they want to achieve and how they're going to measure them as invaluable to be able to sell a strategy or even have anyone listen to you. Because mostly strategy is something that most people think that they've got in the bag. If you ask them what that whole round trip is through strategy and the content and what it is that their users are trying to actually achieve and how they're going to actually tell their boss that they spent this much money on something. But what's that outcome? So helping your client understand what that measurement is and how to report on that, it makes it easier to actually get through that whole content structure. The interesting thing for me is that when people are writing content, I found this at Foxtel with Presto, that one of the errors that one of the content writers wrote was so movie based, it was really quite bizarre. It was a Space 2001 Odyssey reference and it was open the Pod Bay doors for an error. So even though you can get really excited with these things, they still need to be relevant, they need to be short and punchy. Some of you were actually in the accessibility talk with Tim Noon in yesterday. Always remember to in content, it isn't actually about the amount of words you can get on a page. Tim has to listen to every single word on that page and that means that it makes it the owner's task for him to use some sites. So we do need to also remind the people that we're working with that users aren't necessarily just one type of person and that one type of person isn't just them. It is a very, very easy trap to fall into you to think that every single user is just like you. Just to follow up on that, content strategy is often as much about reducing content as it is increasing content. In fact, probably more so. And that's one of the things that makes content strategists different from content marketers. We in Melbourne, we have a content strategy meetup that has a lot of content marketers involved in it. And so we spend quite a lot of time talking to content marketers and they can be great and they can do great things. But one of the things that makes us different, I think is that content marketing is always about just producing, not just, it's always about producing more content and while we need to produce content for every channel and we need to, you know, we need to just keep pumping out this stuff so that people will engage with it and share with it and so on. Content strategy is about sitting back and saying, okay, what resources do you actually have to produce and then maintain this content? What's going to happen to this content any years time? Is it still just going to be sitting on your website? What do you, you know, do you actually have a relevant content that is, that is making your search not work because, you know, you've got pages, you've got pages from a version, you know, your help text is throwing up results from a version of your product that doesn't exist anymore when people are actually looking for the help. So, yeah. Yes, I love that point about, it's not always about new content. A content strategy can actually help you find content that is still valuable, still useful, can still be, can be repurposed for other channels. Not that I really like that word. That, so you don't always have to be creating new content because not everything changes every, every two years. And I've been working with the, I'm a member of the IABC, the International Association of Business Communicators, which is essentially a PR organization. And that's exactly the strategy we've been talking about because they've been creating content for years, 2030, well, eons really, since they've been, since they started. And that, a lot of that content, a lot of that content is still valuable. A lot of those things haven't changed. And so we're looking at repurposing, especially for an organization that doesn't have a whole lot of, operates with a lot of volunteer staff. Getting some real value out of that content, that frankly, people have spent millions and, you know, thousands to millions of dollars creating. It's an absolutely massive asset that when people re-platform, forget that that's their opportunity to really look deeply into it and start getting some value out of it. A couple years ago, I heard someone say that content strategy is not, it's not a technical problem, it's a people problem. And I think that it sort of feels a little bit like you're kind of doing therapy when you're, it's sort of like you're, you know, you're going to the home of a hoarder and saying right, what do we need? And what come, you know, what do we need to keep? What do you think we can get rid of? And I think that, you know, even something when you say content should be about how you do the top tasks, what are, how do you get everyone to agree? What are the top tasks? You know, how do you, how do you deal with the, maybe internal politics or, you know, well, the director wants his photo on the front page? You know, like, how do you kind of try to navigate those internal battles? Gee, thanks. I'll remember that. So how do you get around the people problem? Research. Testing. There's nothing that can, you know, quantitative data when you're actually doing something like Treejack and actually proving that something isn't necessarily going to be successful is very powerful. That is never going to work with the director's photo on a page, I'm afraid. That one, that one with the, what do they call it, hippos? The people who actually make those decisions who you can't ignore. I think when you actually work through individual interviews with people and identify who that person is, who you need to win over, you know, taking your time with them to, to work through those problems is important. You know, I'm working with someone at the moment who has a site who's very close to his heart and unfortunately, a lot of it is, is, is broken now. So we will actually have to restructure that. It is a very, very gentle path that we're leading him down, but we need to lead him down that path nonetheless. Some things we will be successful on and you've just got to keep trying and trying and trying and as much research as possible, I think, and as much data. And look, I have to agree that the more emotion you take out of it or the more opinion you take out of it, the better. So actually, the starting point, especially for us is to really look at, at how the site's being used now, look at especially a very bad site. The search logs can actually turn up amazing information because that's the only way people can find what they want. And just and use the research, telephone interviews, workshops, you know, you, the thing you find out in big organisations is that you'll be sitting in what seems like a very successful workshop and everyone's agreed on something. And then all of a sudden, it's all fallen apart because you don't realise that those two people have never really got on and they always nod their head in public. But really, they will do anything to, you know, to fight each other. So the one on one, really taking the opinion right out of it, focusing on the audience and then going in with that presentation that says, look, these are all of the factors that actually should influence what's going to be on that home page, what's going to be on in the other important areas. And these are the important areas and these are the top tasks. Yeah, so getting some numbers. The other thing is just as most people have no idea what's on their website, most people, most people in organisations have never actually watched a person use their website. So if you can actually, if you have the budget for it and you can organise it, if you can do some usability testing with the senior stakeholders actually looking on via a video link or something like that, that can be really powerful. The kind of cheap and nasty substitute for that is just to be brutally honest with them about your own experiences using the website and don't be afraid to tell them, look, I think you're, you know, I think this experience, you know, I tried to do this thing on your website. It's a completely broken experience. I'll let me tell you why. And often people will just, you know, they just haven't thought of, they just haven't thought of it before because they're looking at it from the organisational point of view, not the customer's point of view. And even really basic things like, you know, your, your, your IA is based on your internal log chart but that doesn't make any sense to ordinary users. That will often be a revelation for people and, you know, what do you think people do when they look at a menu? How do you think people make decisions about what link, what link on a menu to click on? So often things they've never even really thought about. So, you know, just sort of taking them through the process from the point of view of a user can be really, really, really useful. And that trap, of course, of basing something on an org chart is that the org chart changes. We all restructure every seven minutes these days. Yeah, and I think the other point about, you know, those internal people problems is that bringing someone else in from the outside is a really nice way to try to maybe bridge that gap because I think when it's always just the two people butting heads, sometimes getting a third party in and you can even say, look, make us the bad guy. We're the ones giving the bad news, not you. We can, we can help you fight this fight. We can be your advocates. And I want to move on. Oh, did you want to say something? We had an experience with an intranet. We didn't actually do very much work with the client. It was just a very small project. But just having that outside view gave them such confidence in their decisions. They ran them past us. We told them, you know, what the research was. They brought us into their presentation. We didn't have to say anything. Just the fact that we were there was massive because it wasn't just them trying to tell their bosses that things should be different. And I was told by a client, actually on a job with previous next, I was told by a client, yeah, your name quite regularly comes up in meetings and we just, just, just away as a settling argument. So we just say, oh, Angus says we shouldn't do this. So just being that person who is supposed to be, who is the, you know, the presumed expert, that's, you know, hopefully a real expert. But, you know, take it to the market, I guess. You know, just having that figure on the project can be a useful thing. What would Angus do? I know that, Michelle, you really wanted to get onto the topic of accessibility. And something that you said yesterday in your talk stuck with me, which was that when you were working with Presto on the Presto site, they sort of thought, well, we don't need to worry about accessibility. Blind people don't watch movies. So, you know, I guess that the larger point there is that, you know, what was one of the things that Harriet said this morning as well is that, you know, if you presumed it because you use something one way that you know how everyone else is gonna use it, you're often going to be wrong. So I guess for our part, we have a lot of trouble having productive conversations about accessibility because, you know, I had one government client that, you know, we were working with them and the whole time we had accessibility in mind and we knew we were gonna get a Vision Australia audit and we were explaining about PDFs and you really need to make them. You can have them but you need to structure them well and one of them said to me, oh, I heard Vision Australia don't actually check your PDFs. And I said, well, you know, what do you mean? And he said, well, we'll get the certificate anyway. So what's, you know, who cares? And it just, it's sort of mind blowing that those are the conversations that we're having and I actually said to them, so, you know, straight up, are you doing this because you want to have an accessible website or because you want to get the tick? And he said, for sure, we just want to get the tick. So whatever we need to do to do that, you guys do that for us and we'll be all good. So, I mean, it's sort of like where do you even start when you're up against that kind of mindset? So Presto, in the first instance, to meet a deadline and this was two years ago, a decision was taken by the director of transformation to come back to accessibility. The first Presto app was actually built in Google Web Toolkit, which is good for nothing except for Google. That's sorry, just personal opinion, it was a deeply traumatic experience using GWT, tend trying to make it accessible or searchable. The moment that Fox Hill really became committed to accessibility was the moment that the lawyers were contacted. And at that point, it became very important for them to be accessible. And, you know, the second Presto website has been developed and with them saying, well, we want to be double A compliant, we must be double A compliant. The problem with that is that Fox Hill doesn't use closed captionings, which means they don't even meet the single A requirement. When you actually look at accessibility from the point of view of simply using a checker, you're losing sight of the fact that accessibility in itself with a content strategy actually does make things easy to read. It makes it easier to make, it makes more sense to people. And you are far better off and approaching accessibility from a more budget wise position if you are thinking about accessibility in the first instance. Tim says, I get to do that all the time. So Tim says that it's easier to design ramps when you actually build your house rather than actually put them on later. And he uses the example of the opera house in that particular regard. When you are looking at a content strategy or UX in any particular instance, you do actually have to think about personas. And I know a lot of people who are a little bit cynical about personas, but really what we're asking you to do when you do that with content strategy or UX is put yourself in the shoes of somebody else. I was saying to Susan just before that we had a couple of years ago a site and mobile application called Genie. And that mobile application was custom built, but it had to deal with so many different forms of disability that it became contextual. So what happens when you're actually writing for someone who can't read or they have a specific issue with recognizing numbers? What happens when you're designing an interface for someone who has only one hand? And that same interface has to work for someone who doesn't have the other hand. So when you're actually thinking about how to approach a site from this perspective, the easiest way I think is to try and get someone to emotionally connect with how it is for someone else. And the people who are looking for just checks and boxes are probably some of the hardest people to win over. I usually take that as a personal mission to win them over in this particular regard. I often fail, but I will still beat my head against that brick wall. So please do try to actually look at content from the perspective of, well, what is someone else gonna actually view? How is someone else gonna view this? How do we actually make it easier for people to see? I'm actually gonna go divert to something. One of our designers and developers, Jay, often says that clients don't think about what the deeper level content on their site is actually gonna look like. You design a couple of pages and say, right, well, that's all we're gonna do. But he often then sees things like block quotes getting left out of style guides and things like that. I think it's important to really look deeply into the types of content that you have and get that peer reviewed so you haven't forgotten anything and accessibility, accessibility, I say that all the time. So, you know, I say it at the end of every sentence, really. I did some teaching at RMIT in the early 2000s and I was talking to my students then about accessibility and there was a great tool called Bobby, I think. And I came to the understanding that if you build, and of course, I've always been very content focused, although I was a designer years ago, that if you build for accessibility or if you create content for accessibility, you're actually creating better content for all of us. I'd love to be able to choose whether to read, listen to or some other method I don't know, perhaps just plug it into the back of my head, in a matrix style, some content. There's so much to absorb, you know, and Tim made that great point that, you know, at some point in our lives, well, we'll have a disability, but even just in the context of what we're doing, we're unable to do some things. So, I can't read a book while I'm driving, but I can listen to a book while I'm driving. So, thinking about the ways content can be delivered to make everybody's lives, make it all, make it more useful for everybody. And another point that Tim made was that blind people using screen readers are greatly assisted by having a kind of semantically logical heading structure on a page, and we know, of course, that that's good for everybody, it's good for the design, it's good for the predictability, I guess, of how the CSS works on the page, and it's also really, really good for Google. So, I think there are a lot of those areas where you do get multiple wins by making your accessibility right. So, yeah. So, when you get a bug report that the WYSIWYG doesn't have an H1 style, you can explain that that's for a very good reason. And one of the things that Susan, we talked about before this, and something that I think everyone sort of touched on is that it doesn't have to be this giant, long, expensive exercise, and it's something that also Harriet touched on this morning with User Journeys, and I've certainly had experiences with big consulting agencies doing six-month user journey exercises, and it was another sort of similar to the accessibility thing it was to tick a box. It was to say, well, we've done that, we never looked at them again, we proceeded to build the site the way everyone had assumed we would anyway. I guess, could you each talk a little bit about what's the kind of minimum viable action to put it in Harriet's words? What's the minimum viable action on content strategy that you think can still really go a long way? I'm actually going to tweet a link to a, there was a really fantastic webinar that Jeff Eaton gave for Gather Content. Jeff Eaton is a well-known person in the Drupal community, but he's also really interested in content strategy, and he gave basically a free webinar for Gather Content, which I don't know if any of you have used, it's essentially a tool for gathering content, funnily enough, for a project. But anyway, the talk, he basically broke it down into, well, these are the sort of five fundamental things we need to know about the content for a project before we get started on a build. And so I hope I can remember the five things he said. I think the first one was the game, what he called the game plan, which might call, I guess, the strategy with a capital S. It's, you know, why are we doing this? What are we, you know, who are we doing it for? And, you know, in a broad sense, how are we going to go about it? He talked about the inventory, which is what we've already brought up, that sense of what content you already have. He said, we need to know a content, we need to have a content model, which is, I'm going to be talking about this afternoon, as a content model is essentially the types of the, in Drupal terms, the content types and the fields within those content types, how the content is going to be structured in the sort of the back end of the CMS. He says you need to know that the presentation model, what he calls the presentation model, which is essentially how content is going to be presented to the end user. So, you know, what kind of pages you have, what your information architecture is, all that kind of thing. And then finally, he says you need to know the workflow, which is basically how content, within an organisation, how content comes into being, and what steps it has to go through before it's published on a website. And I guess I'd also add to that what happens to content after it's published on a website, when does it get reviewed, when does it get deleted, and so on and so forth. So he sort of says, you know, if you want to think of five things you need to know, and they're all things that you, you know, it would be great if you could get a professional to do some of all of those things, but there were ways of kind of getting to all of those things yourself. And so, yeah, so I think that's a really useful resource and I will dig it up and tweet a link to it, using the hashtag. I just want the really big, expensive, long project. So, I don't know. No, look, really, in my heart, I'm just a big believer in great content that actually does a lot of work for you. And we can scale, I suppose, we haven't really got it all sort of tied down yet, but my goal is a completely scalable product where we can go in at a very minor level to help out and work with people at different levels. I really think a great content strategy, and I hate myself for saying this, but it really comes from inside. So actually helping, actually teaching an organisation to fish, I think is probably better than just giving them the fish, because I think these days, and I may be wrong, but I actually think the era of the massive big every three-year project where you just throw out everything you had or every five-year project or whatever you throw out, everything and re-platform and start again is going to slowly become a thing of the past and that constant, well-managed website that grows incrementally and organically is the way things will go. I could be proven wrong, but understanding within an organisation how to be strategic with your content is the answer to good content strategy, and I think it's the answer to accessibility continuing past a launch as well. In addition to what Angus said, because I get to do that again, is make sure you've got your kit bag ready. The most valuable thing that you can give to anyone who you're trying to prove a point to is to be able to have an immense amount of slides, decks from other presentations, case studies that are pre-written that you can refer to at any time to share with them how you want them to be thinking and developing and growing in this process, to be able to actually pick out a relevant example at any point in a conversation with someone that is, and I'm a great believer in actually going well out of industry for these types of things, making sure that you've actually got those reference points, those kit bags and that they're up to date and that you know them is one of the most valuable things you can do to try and help someone understand a point. So make sure you've got your kit bag well up to date, well stocked and put in a few clangents. So one of my favorite things to do with universities is actually use the US military as an example. It really is a little bit of a shock to them that perhaps the US military is teaching people something better than they are and Go Army is a fantastic site for looking at how you stretch past the audience that you have, one of the biggest things that the US Go Army recruitment site has to do is get past parents and family. So that is one of the main focuses of their site. So when you actually have an example like that to get across to someone, make sure that you just have done your homework to give them. The other great one for universities is the classic XKCD cartoon, the Venn diagram of what people are looking for on a university website homepage versus what the university wants to put on their homepage, which I think is one item in common. We're pretty much out of time. Someone asked on Twitter though about whether any of you use any content strategy methodologies. I think probably the sort of framework that you described from Jeff Eaton might be a good example. I don't know whether any of you have any other examples. Or if any of you have any questions, feel free to come down. Or if you want to leave, you can also leave slowly up to you. You had quite a fair bit of discussion about accessibility, but I suppose from my perspective is a lot of different levels of user engagement when you're designing content. So if a user comes in and basically doesn't want to read a massive slab of text and to be able to cater to them at a very low level, they get that basic piece of information but also to be able to deliver information in more depth to those who require that. How, what strategies have you used for that? You actually, in one of the talks you did a couple years ago, you posted one of my favorite examples, which I think was the ATO, which had a really, really long page about whether your car was a car or something else. And it was like, what are these fringe factoids that yes, certainly some people might need, but definitely not everyone needs to know. Yeah, so a lot of that is to do with good content modeling, I think. So having well-structured content so that you're identifying within the structure of your content, within the CMS, here are the most important things that everybody needs to know. They then become the things that need to appear at the top of the screen on mobile and so on and so forth. And here's the sort of supplementary content that people who really want to read are going to go on and read. So I think you're setting up a good content structure and one that's based on a sense of the different kinds of users you have. So we certainly use... I mean, user personas aren't something that's specific to content strategy, but certainly one of the tools that we use to try and think through problems from the point of view of different types of users. Yeah, no, I agree with Angus. When you're actually looking at group content modeling for that particular instance, I think you need to decide how deep you're actually going into something. I really like short-shot content for the majority of the stuff that I work on, mostly because I'm very impatient, don't have a lot of patience with really, really long pages. So I like a really, really good visual structure to any type of content, especially if it's very, very long so that I'm able to actually get through it fairly quickly. So yeah, that group content modeling is very important, I think. And headings. Headings. Headings are an answer to a lot of things and that's one of them. Schimable headings, yeah. So do you have a question? Do you want to say it, I'll just repeat it back. If you've, yeah. Anybody who has successfully convinced a base of authors to use heading styles in Microsoft Word is my hero, that's fantastic. And the same principle applies within a CMS. I guess the difference within a CMS is that we have a lot more control over what we expose to authors. So we do have the, and nothing makes me, nothing makes my blood boil more than seeing a CMS implementation where the developer has just left the default. And this doesn't happen so much in Drupal because we have to go to so much effort to win. Yeah, we have to go to so much effort to install it with Iwig in the first place. But you'll often see these sites where they still have the insert flash button. And all these, the font color button and all these things that you should never give authors control over. So there's a lot you can do within the CMS itself to restrict authors' choices. But I think absolutely explaining, and there's a whole issue with WissyWeek editing is that we've kind of constructed this metaphor for authors where we're almost pretending that editing a web page is like editing a Word document. So we've kind of made a rod for our own backs because people expect things to look, you know, we call it what you see is what you get. And we know that's really not the case. But explaining what heading styles are in HTML as well and how heading styles translate to, the fact that heading styles are defined within your CSS. So if you've set up your heading styles correctly when you're entering content, then when somebody goes to do a redesign of your site and your heading's all suddenly look different, that'll all carry across if you've got them correctly set up. So a bit of education about authors is about why we do this, that we're not doing it to make your life difficult or to force some kind of weird system on you. There's actually reasons behind it. So yeah, great comment. Thank you. And if you think about a people of learnt, I think it's just the fact that it is like Microsoft Word. People have learnt to use extremely complicated applications, especially in government over the years. So, you know, people can learn a new method. It has to actually be moved into your processes rather than just, and give people time to do it as well. You know, this extra, often people have their own job and this is just something they're supposed to do as well without actually being recognised for it. So I think there's a lot to be done in that area as well. I think you hit it on the head when someone actually gets a benefit from something they're more readily adopting it and PageMaker has a lot to answer for. I loved PageMaker. I know, I know. I think one of the things I got from your comment is that a lot of people approach content editors like you said as kind of a bolt-on, you know, they're sort of copy-paste robots and, you know, we need to build a CMS that's idiot-proof and it has to be, you know, built-in accessibility and all this kind of stuff. And I think that if probably we spent as much money on the kind of trying to create technology solutions, again, it's really a people problem. And I think you might be surprised how often if you try to empower someone and you try to educate them that they rise to the occasion rather than, you know, treating them like an idiot, then, you know, you might get idiot results back. So I think it's really all about attitude and approaching it from a perspective of training and education and not just sort of hitting it with a technical hammer. I just wanted to ask what sort of importance do you give to Google Analytics and other analytics, giving you feedback on user activity and to what extent does that override like user interviews and stuff like that? It's certainly a very useful tool that we refer to a lot. Having said that, the problem with making decisions based on analytics data is that it's very easy to convince yourself that a particular piece of data means almost anything. So, you know, bounce rate's the classic example that everyone wants to have a low bounce rate. But if you've got a page where people are just going to find a phone number and they then make the phone call, then you want that page to have a high bounce rate. And that's the case with a whole lot of those sort of metrics within analytics. So, we definitely use it a lot with clients, but we would always use it as a supplement to, I guess, actually talking to users and getting as much qualitative information from users as we can, because the numbers don't tell the whole story. The numbers can give you a good sense of maybe what the big sort of low-hanging fruit is, but they certainly don't tell you everything. I don't know if you have thoughts about that. What are the problems with analytics programs? It's like the word stuff. They're never set up properly. It is very rare that you'll go into a client site and find Google Analytics actually configured correctly. St. George, I remember, in 2009, had Omniture all over their site, but it had never been set up correctly. I think there's a company called Digital Balance over in WA who work very, very closely with people to teach them how to actually have analytics set up to give you meaningful data at the other end. When it is set up right and you do have someone looking at it who knows what they're looking at, I think it's incredibly valuable. I have no opinion on this. We probably should wrap it up because we might miss out on lunch, so I think.