shay

Another great opportunity to capture your users’ hearts and minds is in the most unlikely of places — on the error page. But just think about it. You’re admitting to a failure of your site, so what better way to extend your apologies then with a bit of witty humility?

Wufoo has a fantastic interface that asks its users submitting a support request how they’re feeling. Samantha Warren of BadAssIdeas goes into describing it in more detail on Viget’s Inspire blog, and it got me thinking; How about something similar for a website’s error page? I mean, I guess the user is probably going to choose “pissed off,” assuming that’s an option, but maybe she’d also consider “amused” if you admit fault for the error but beg forgiveness (in effect, asking for their loyalty).

The hope is that no user would ever find this page, or any “technical difficulty” page in general, but errors are inevitable, I suppose. Attending to this page and capitalizing on its important copy real estate could inevitably convert an annoyed user to a forgiving one.

The Good
We worked to accomplish this notion, complete with an image of Brian in Go-Kart headgear, on the Viget site. (OK so I’m biased, but, hey, at least I practice what I preach.)

Check out a rather hilarious baby theme that permeates Mixx — from a napping error page, to a tear-filled upgrade your browser page, to a we-went-overboard page.  And, don’t forget their video.

The Bad
Nike? Your site is amazing. Why is your error page so blah?

Apple’s error page isn’t really BAD, per se, but it’s information overload. It does the opposite of leaving a dead-end by telling the user to choose among about 50 different potential topics. Not to mention the navigation itself. Utilitarian, yes. Converting disgruntled users with the same smart, simple tactics I see in their marketing? Nah. (But, then again, we Macheads are so loyal anyway, we will probably come back for more of their overpriced amazing goodness.) Sigh.

I’ve harped a lot on why having engaging copy can separate one site from another. Assume only more of the same. (What? It’s a legitimate argument!)

Jackson questioned which pages should receive focused effort in creating brilliant copy. I understand it’s serious hard work for people to craft creative content for an entire site (*cough* hire a copywriter! *cough*), and he raises a realistic point: making an impact in a handful of highly visible areas of a site AND in the details, too, can have a tremendous effect. So here’s the first of many places I think a site can showcase brilliant web copy to separate itself from the competition: About Us.

Is this too obvious? Or maybe it’s surprising because #1 might otherwise have been the homepage, but more and more people are finding secondary (and deeper) pages through search engines and skipping the homepage completely.

Whether they come to the homepage or jump into some third-level page doesn’t matter; ultimately, if you have what they’re looking for, they’ll jump to your “about” page to help gauge legitimacy. Grab them by describing yourself in an direct, genuine way.

Not sure how to do that? Well, pretend like you’re describing your company to your grandma. You’ll be surprised by how different (Dare I say, approachable? Or easy?) your language becomes when talking to a loved one versus a potential consumer. Once you have that conversational infrastructure, you can “professionalize” it to how you assume your users will best understand it.

But don’t go overboard — sometimes, your users want to digest your language the same way your grandma does. More and more, the internet is becoming an informal place where business is done in jeans over IM. Of course, this doesn’t hold true for every company, but keep in mind that your content should be representative of you but speak to your user.

The Good
Viget.com (shameless plug. sue me. please don’t.) – We are people. Here’s what we do. Here are the qualities we personify in our staff and through our work. And it’s not *just* because Viget Labs is a fun web consulting company that allows it to project such an approachable voice; it’s because it refuses to confuse “conversational” with “unprofessional,” and many companies still have a hard time realizing the two aren’t necessarily synonymous. (Considering so many decisions are made over lunch — rather than in boardrooms — you’d think more traditional businesses would start speaking directly to consumers rather than through a marketing team trying to come up with “impressive” descriptors that most people never use in everyday language. To them, I say: KISS.*)

U.S. Department of Education – I applaud the U.S. Dept. of Ed. for using the KISS* technique in its about page. This is who we are, when we were founded, and what we do. It doesn’t get bogged down in traditional stodgy (unnecessarily wordy) government lingo. Bingo bango, Secrest out.

The Bad
Boeing.com – I know Boeing is speaking to an entirely different audience than viget.com, for example, but I have a hard time believing that users — before visiting Boeing — decided they really needed a company that would integrate “through network-centric operations” by creating solutions “that reach across business units.” Maybe those people exist, and maybe they’re enjoying a round of golf right now. To me, the language on Boeing’s site screams fluffy marketing, and aside from a few lines on their about page, I argue that their value is diluted because someone wanted to fill up the webpage with more copy. The real meat is that more than 150,000 people comprise Boeing, which, at its core, “is the world’s leading aerospace company and the largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners and military aircraft combined.” Less is more.*

Dell – Did I just click to read news releases? Who is EqualLogic? Dell is assuming that everyone in the world knows who they are. Maybe that’s an OK assumption to make if you’re Michael Jackson, but Dell misses the mark here by not even giving a paragraph to itself as a company. Instead, it makes reader wade through press releases — something I argue no one really wants to do anymore — to find out what the company has been doing lately. So much for engaging readers. Why not just have an about page that says, “If you’re here, you know us. ‘Nuff said.” Pompous? Sure. But confusing, nah.

* KISS: Keep it simple, stupid.

I have a hard time understanding why clients stress about writing content. (I’m a writer, so it’s my passion. Sue me. Please don’t.) To others, it can be overwhelming and intimidating knowing each piece of copy must appeal to users AND to stakeholders approving that language.

Ok, I get it.

When web projects launch past original deadlines, more often than not it’s solely because of lagging content—not, perhaps surprisingly, because major development or design elements are past due. While priorities are being set and the Agile process takes hold of both development and design, the content gets pushed to the back burner. Project managers, designers, and developers often come up with snippets of content to insert across the site while waiting … and waiting … for the final approved content to arrive. Sometimes, it doesn’t, and the site launches with what informed team members thought works well for both the space and the purpose.

No need to stress! Why not take an Agile approach to writing content? Make it a priority (because it should be) alongside development and design decisions. Instead of working for weeks toiling over a central document that circulates to all stakeholders and undergoes fourteen revisions before any text actually gets incorporated into the site, why not start early and write some text to use on the site as it’s built? Throw some samples and ideas and voices over the fence (to us) to integrate with the site during (or even before) the design process. Or send along what you’ve got (regardless of what that is) and have our copywriter take a stab at revitalizing your content to speak to your users while meeting your business goals.

Ultimately, when your content is put in perspective—in the user experience, that is—you’ll find that it’s now complemented by the design and development features of the site overall. Or, it can actually be constrained by those elements. Either way, it can take on new meaning that you simply can’t derive when revising and editing within the constraints of a Word document.

By addressing content early and understanding its crucial impact on your site’s success, our team will be free to spend more time fine tuning the details (that set apart your site) with your budget.

See this original post.

I’m all about finding a common ground in communication. Non-native speakers, for example, trying to write English are noble people. I don’t judge; I try to write in French, and I’m certain I’m just wrong. But I’m forgiven and I learn.

What I don’t get, though, is utter disregard for English by native speakers of the language. And I don’t mean messing up pronouns — I mean inventing a new language within English itself. Except this new language hurts me.

Maybe I’m not cool enough to be able to read, “How u livin cuz” via text message without wanting to jump into the other extreme and respond, “Well, my kind sir, I am living quite well. And you, pray tell? How is it that you are living?” I mean, first of all, why drop the “are?” It’s three letters! I’d even accept “r” because I am trying to be understanding of how the web and SMS and twitter are constraining our writing. But “cuz?” I mean, c’mon. It’s not even “cous” as in “cousin,” which is how the word is actually meant. I just can’t stand for that.

Instead of “how come?” the other day, or even “why is that?,” I was asked “whycome?” One word. I was astounded. Again, I immediately think, “Am I lame? Is this the way I should be communicating with me peers?” Maybe this person is asking me, “why do you come to such conclusions?” But in the end, I just can’t assume any responsibility here. Whycome makes no sense. It’s just ridiculous. And, frankly, it takes just as long to type as “howcome,” which without the space is still at least not moronic entirely.

Whereu@ is another great example of a new word-phrase evolution. Whereru would be quicker, and actually be grammatically correct albeit annoying thanks to its jammed togetherness. Am I too elitist because i think that Whereu@ is unacceptable? That the person writing such a mess isn’t capable of adult conversation? Probably.

I guess im ok w/dat.