Readability guidelines alpha: the end
Published 16 October 2018, by Sarah Winters in Content Process Research.
The end is not the end. You know that. š
Last week, we had a meeting to talk about the Readability guidelines alpha. Thank you to all those who came. And a massive thank you to Deliveroo for hosting us with space, drinks, and nibbles. Thanks so much.
We talked about what worked, what didnāt work and what we would like to do next.
Summary
We are continuing with another 10-week project to refine our approach and see if it works.
What went well.
The things that we felt that worked were:
- the intention ā we can see the value,
- the links and discussion were posted were useful,
- a forum where people could share,
- people were passionate,
- good to tap into experience,
- deadlines,
- examples from people in the chat about where certain things worked and when it didnāt.
What didnāt go well.
Couple of things we could improve:
- limited number of people were contributing,
- daunting to contribute ā one comment was āI was worried it might come across as too much of my style guide. I was worried that it was irrelevant and boring.ā,
- wiki and discussion space were fragmented,
- lost track of discussion thread,
- editorial versus usable ā people were confused about what the comments should be,
- ran out of time and we āmissed the chance for people to pile inā.
Research
I said that our discussions regularly came back to research so I wanted to understand why we needed it and what research we needed. Comments were:
- only way to get decisions across [managers donāt trust their content teamsā expertise],
- research thatās available is usually selling something,
- current research is not about usability,
- research is all over the place,
- canāt find any relevant research,
- different industries tested will come up with different guidance,
- āWe find stuff on the Internet, but thereās no quality-controlā.
We talked about how people didnāt trust existing research because it wasnāt seen as ārelevantā. For example, some universities donāt trust anything but their own research. Some donāt trust GOV.UK research because itās government etc. We felt that if we found different examples from different industries, we might be able to get over some of these trust issues.
(Note: if all industries say the same thing, which is quite likely on many topics, ultimately, over time, our organisations might start trusting the guidance for other industries. Weāll have to see.)
Other comments
- What does readability cost us and what is it worth?
- Small groups coming together might be able to get us further.
- Super contributors might be a good idea.
- Inclusivity ā we agreed making content accessible is an aim but weād call it inclusive so that people didnāt just think of code.
- Some people felt they were ālurkingā ā they read it all but donāt contribute. Itās very useful to consume but hard to contribute.
Time is a challenge
Might as well stare this one full in the face. We all struggle with time. When we talked at the meet-up and on various channels, we can all see the value of this if we contribute but not many do.
We also talked about the challenge of being available at 7pm on a Tuesday.
So my challenge to you for 10 weeks: 30 mins a week.
For most, thatās one commute. For one journey to work youāll commit to add something to the discussion on the current topic.
As Gerry McGovern says: āIt seems we have time to do it wrong, but we never have time to do it right.ā
This could help us get a lot of things right.
This is an opportunity.
Next steps
We have decided to:
- take the next 10 weeks as a beta (project ends on December 18th, 2018)
- ask for volunteers to lead on topics
- make it inclusive ā weāll spend time looking at the accessibility/inclusivity of all elements
We are also committing time from the fabulous Lizzie Bruce, one of our trainers. Lizzie has a bunch of ideas in mind so weāll keep you posted.
Super contributors.
Will you lead on a topic?
Each week we will set up a topic. You will lead. Youāll have your own slack channel (lucky you!) and everyone interested can dive in. When you have collected up guidance and research, from the people participating and from your own search for evidence, (like usability studies and academic research), you put it on the wiki. You can also do a short summary of what was discussed if you like, but donāt worry if you havenāt got time ā Lizzie can jump in and help.
Rest of us
We all dive in and support the topics when we can.
Remember: Slack is available all the time. If everyone supporting a particular topic can chat at one time, fab. If you canāt, leave your comments so others can pick up later.
To clarify the point of this project
We are looking at content elements, traditionally in style guides, to look at their usability. We will focus on:
- usability ā have we seen content elements confuse users
- inclusivity ā accessibility is usability
- research ā what can we find and what do we need?
- all industries ā weāll try and get information from as many industries as possible so our organisations are more likely to trust us
We are not looking at brand or tone.
If we canāt find evidence, we will state that the decision is editorial and therefore, go with whatever we want! We should keep an eye on these topics to see if anything changes over time.
Iād like us to keep a list of the research we might find useful if it doesnāt exist. We can look at funding that later.
Have confidence
The last thing I would like to mention is: have confidence. If you are thinking it, so are at least 5 other people. There are no stupid questions or comments. It might seem daft to you but it might be the first time someone else has heard of it. It might be the one thing that sparks an idea in someone elseās head that leads us all to a solution. Donāt keep it to yourself.
Be advised: itās your perception that others may be bored by you. You have no evidence. Thatās not very content design, is it? You need to test that and you need evidence.
So dive in.
Wiki: http://readabilityguidelines.wikidot.com
Slack: https://join.slack.com/t/readabilityguidelines/shared_inviteā¦
You can sign up to our email newsletter to get regular updates from Content Design London.
Upcoming courses
2 day Foundation content design course 31 May and 01 June 2022 (online)
2 day Foundation content design course 07 and 08 June 2022 (online. AEDT timings)
2 day Foundation content design course 15 and 16 June 2022 (online. CDT timings)
2 day Foundation content design course 29 and 30 June 2022 (online)
2 day Advanced content design course. 29 and 30 June 2022 (online)
2 day Foundation content design course 26 and 27 July 2022 (online)
2 day Foundation content design course 24 and 25 August 2022 (in person)
2 day Foundation content design course 31 August and 01 September 2022 (online)
2 day Foundation content design course 06 and 07 September 2022 (online. AEDT timings)
Content Design 12-week Academy 06 September - 29 November 2022 (online)