I get the content in Word, copy into the various boxes in the CMS and then see how it looks. Normally I spot a few typos, or it doesn’t appear where I want it to, then I have to go back and find the article again – which isn’t so bad, it’s normally at the top. The real pain is when I have to add another link to that list over there. (whispers) Normally I ask James (a developer) to do that for me, though as I can’t do it.

This was a conversation I had with a person recently about how they use their CMS. A real-life content person. I say content person, not ‘creator’ as you may have noticed she doesn’t write the content. She just ‘gets it’. She’s a piece in the publishing workflow. A cog in a machine. And our tools are failing her and are only going to get worse.

In that workflow, there is a bit that’s a clear trend amongst the people I’ve spoken to about this.

then see how it looks.

And that’s the thing, right there.

Since we’ve been using computers to make websites we’ve tried to make them like print. Of course, early on, that was fair enough. It was familiar. We knew the rules and tried to make the web like it. Even now, with the realisation that the web has changed – or rather, we’re being honest to the way the web is. It never really changed, we just tried to make it something it wasn’t – we’re still enforcing a print-like mental model on it. Not necessarily us designers and developers, though. This is coming from people who write and manage content. Just like printing out an email before they send it, they will want to preview a website to see how it looks.

The problem is this: The question content people ask when finishing adding content to a CMS is ‘how does this look?’. And this is not a question a CMS can answer any more – even with a preview. How we use the web today has meant that the answer to that questions is, ‘in what?’.

WYSIWTFFTWOMG!

Let me first off define what I see WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG is not a limited toolbar for adding semantic value to your document.
The kind of toolbar you find on Medium, or on Basecamp. As you can see they are similar. They are used for applying semantics to document structure; giving words emphasis, making unordered lists, or numbered lists, making words headlines. However, they’re not there for the user to get creative. They do not change the colour of a word.

When I think WYSIWYG, I think of the Word toolbar. This type of WYSIWYG is for adding tables, images, forms, type and colour. It’s a toolkit to create pages of content. Just like desktop publishing. And that’s the dangerous thing. Content creators are used to having these tools at their disposal so they can craft their document. Why? Because writing isn’t done in a CMS, it’s done elsewhere.

Times -are changing- have changed

It’s been a turbulent few years for web designers and developers. We’ve had to relearn what we’ve created and finally acknowledge – through the timeliness of Responsive Design – that the web is a fluid and chaotic place, and we should be embracing it and not making it like print. We’ve learnt to deal with the loss of control. The problem is, though, our content people are still thinking of pages. They’re still thinking of previewing. Of designing for the desktop. They’re writing in Word and fine with it.

So, that’s the challenge. How can we help people – just as we have – relearn how the web is now?

Just like when people have a content management problem, a lot of people are turning to technology for the answers. And just like content management problems, my experience is software can’t fix it. Because it’s a people problem, not a software problem.

The three places of content management

There are three spaces * for content people – not creators, because not all content people create loads of content. Some just manage it – push it from here to there. Those places are:

  1. A space for writing. For writing and structuring.
  2. A space for management. For adding meta data, workflow, configuration and managing roles and people.
  3. The website space. Basically your website. A place where you begin the access user journey. Or preview your content. Generally the starting points for lots of little administration tasks.
  • There are other spaces, too. The developer space, where the site is administered and created, managed and evolved. Sometimes this is through an administration interface, but not always. Sometimes it’s just through an API.

The problem I see is that the CMS tries to deal with all three spaces equally well. And as such, generally fails to deliver an optimal experience because it’s trying to do too much. What if your content management system was actually three distinct applications designed to work together? Just a thought.

But, back to WYSIWYG.

The issue with WYSIWYG for me is that by using them the content person is considering the content as what they see. But content is more than that. Especially if it has meta data, and is split up and compiled from here and there. A ‘page’ maybe a dynamic template pulling in content from a dozen places. How do you change meta data there?

If we consider the majority use-cases of correcting typos, restructuring slightly, or small on the fly editing, then the smaller toolbars for adding semantic value are useful. But for most use cases, a WYSIWYG is not useful for content people. It’s just familiar.

Inline-access, not inline-editing

One of the other pain points of a complex dynamic website, where ‘pages’ are created with bits of content from all over the place is ‘where the hell do I go to find that bit of content to edit it?’. That is a painful moment in a content person’s daily life. Normally, after watching them, they go off deep into search, or ask someone else who knows better. Accessing these smaller nuggets of logic-based content is problematic. This is why inline-editing and WYSIWYG is coming to the fore – addressing the use case in the live environment.

Why is this a problem?

As I said before, it’s hiding the truth. That being, the content is more than you can see. Instead of inline editing of the content, why not just make the start of that journey a little easier? Why not provide a way of quickly getting to exactly that bit of content with a link? There we will see all of the stuff that is the content but not the words: the display logic, taxonomies, meta data etc. But if we want to change a type, we can do that with our little toolbar.

Not one tool, but many. Not one way, but many.

Structured content is the right way to go. It makes our content portable and malleable. In fact, it makes it much more useful. Slapping a WYSIWYG on top of a form field is not the way to go. That’s not structured. Live WYSIWYG is not the way to go for large-scale websites because it reinforces that content is just what you see. When, in fact, a piece of content could have a whole bunch of other headlines and summaries that would only be displayed in certain contexts, along with meta data and rules. We need access to ALL THE CONTENT and provide simple, little tools to let people make typo changes and apply semantic structure and the like once they’re looking at the content in a staging environment.

‘How does this look?’

should change to:

‘How does this read?’

Device agnostic. Screen size independent and devoid of design. Let’s help content people focus on what the words and pictures are, rather than what the words and pictures look like.