This is a big challenge. But we don’t get out of bed each day to turn a handle so-to-speak.

We formed a short list as follows:

1. Gestures (touch)
2. Drag and Drop
3. Rich media layering
4. Canvas layering / interactive scrolling
5. Data visualisation through 3d

Obviously this isn’t new stuff – but we were thinking about what’s conventional (plenty of the stuff above would confuse a 60yo – so what will become commonplace in the next 2 years and easily understood by the grey people?) – no offence to our ancestors..  Or should I say digital converts as opposed to us digital natives?

The reason we asked these questions is we’re trying to come up with some ground breaking ideas for our clients and we’d really like to see us turn a conventional data / interaction on its head and change the game.

I just saw a quote that said

“ the conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking…”  Cute eh!

So consider a simple user interaction on a tablet device where the user is transitioning from a paper based forms environment:

For example, why point and click/tap a box when you could brush over it as if you were holding a pencil in a tick motion????

So what will will be common place in the near future – maybe as popular as the mouse – who one reporter in the 80’s commented on “there is no evidence that the public want to interact with their computers using such a device… ? EH!

Imminent conventions:

Our in-house emerging tech specialist James has given us the following food for thought about what will become convention soon:

Microsoft Kinnect type interactions

No mouse or keyboard required – voice and body gesture based interface, no physical connection to screen or mouse required (can be done with webcam + mic, kinnect hardware not required)

User Customisable UI elements

(Sometimes) iOS apps let you customise the tab bar at the bottom of apps, they presents you with a list of possible tabs and the users drags the ones they want or use the most onto the tab bar. Perhaps this will spill over to the web, like when you setup a custom Google home page. So you could turn navigation items off you don’t care about, add a top level navigation item to a sub/sub/sub-page that the user uses frequently.

More drag and drop of things

Drag and drop between different applications / environments – I can drag files from my desktop to the web browser based cloud storage (box.net website) in Google’s Chrome browser, or drop a video into YouTube and it uploads, no need to search. Perhaps in the future you can drag more stuff, perhaps drag an image or news article from one tab and drop it onto a Facebook contact to share it with them.

Less clicking

From my personal experience, some people are crap at clicking on things, and often don’t understand what can be clicked on and why

Adaptive UI

The first time I go to a website its often immediately overwhelming – the amount of links and sections, how the site is structured and I often don’t know how to get where I need to, so those big “Click here to login” style buttons are great for first time users. Skip forward in time, I am now familiar with the site, I know exactly where I need to go, and what I need to, so I would like heaps and heaps of links so I can get to where I need to go quickly. Could we build a UI that is initially very simple and layers in addition functionality as the users proves competence (either over time, or by logging in, or by any other bizarre metric we can come up with)?

Express logins 

If I am logged into Facebook, a lot of websites recognise that, and let me make comments on a post using my pre-populated Facebook profile stuff.  So perhaps more personal recognition in UI. i.e. “your friend Sam Smith was looking at this page 5 mins ago, and is online now, chat to him about it”.

Google Labs 

Anything listed in labs.google.com

Right Click

I think ‘right-click’ is making a comeback – ref box.net functionality

Zooming

Perhaps zooming, used as a UI mechanic to help keep context … if you think of a Google map, zoomed in to see all of Tasmania, if this represents an entire website, using Google maps to pan to Hobart and zoom in, you will now see more data about Hobart, but because the transition wasn’t a click and page reload zoomed into Hobart, you gain a sense of scale and position (context).

Device interactions

More device-to-device interactions, doesn’t really relate to UI, like when we sit in our board room looking at the projector, allowing someone to drag a file from their iPad to the screen, somehow. Firefox now has this feature where you can save open tabs to the cloud… their example is if you are looking at flight time information on your PC at home but need to leave in a rush because your taxi arrives, once in the cab you can whip out your phone and open Firefox, it’s on the same page as your home pc, so you can keep checking your flight. So perhaps move to my iPhone type UI elements.

HUD

Augmented reality will be big, dunno how that effects UI

Hidden UI elements 

Ubunutu 11 (Linux) has gotten rid of scroll bars, these guys are sometimes ahead of the curve on these kinds of things. Now (from memory) if you move your mouse to where a scrollbar should be, a mini scroll bar appears outside the window, it’s kind of odd but isn’t confusing at all and saves some pixels which is important on tablets, it’s also very touch friendly.

Infographics

Infographics are big, perhaps we could do more dynamic infographics for overview information in complex environments

Data visualisation

Stream graphs started making an impact last year, a great method of visualising complicated data.

Here are some good data visualisation references

http://flowingdata.com/

http://www.visualcomplexity.com

http://chartporn.org/

Basically, I tried to express that there should be a philosophy behind his work and that he needs a body of evidence regarding that in terms of an expression of applying that philosophy.  It was a pretty heavy set of advice but I had hoped to get him on track at a root level.

Anyway, after chatting for a while he mentioned a new group that had been forming in the north of Tasmania for Web Professionals and that the group had asked “are there any real web strategists in Tasmania”?  To which my young associate had said “yes, I know one”.

It reminded me that we’re thin on the ground here in Hobart.

Considering the designer in front of me and how he’d arrived at calling himself ‘a designer’ it occurred to me there’s a number of ‘web strategists’ or ‘digital strategists’ popping up too.  And, I’d argue with a great weight of evidence in my pocket that these self-proclaimed ‘web strategists’ suffered from the same founding issues as the designer in front of me.

It sounds cool to be a digital strategist doesn’t it?

From http://bentremblay.com/en/category/social-media

Sums it up pretty well really.

The emergence of web strategists / digital strategists

This is not a new title.  Go back in time to big tech companies of the last decade and they’ve been around for ages.

I remember meeting with a director of a recruitment firm 4 years ago and said to him “keep an eye out for the emergence of a new role that will become very important in the crossover of marketing to digital – digital strategists”.  I stated that there would be few but they’d be of high demand as media convergence became common place.  I expected a bit of gold fever by the end of last decade.

Where there’s a gold rush the mining experts (or should I say hopefuls) emerge.  And, with there still being limited web education processes I haven’t seen a Web Strategy Degree being offered at Uni.  We have to piece the role together through specialisation in certain areas.

Is web strategy and digital strategy just gobbledegook for online marketer?

There are plenty of people around that have been commercially involved with the web for some time now and the role is often bandied about and usually in the context of marketing.

But is a digital strategist just about marketing?

What I’m observing at the moment is this:

1. Ran a website before
2. Been involved in planning a website
3. Taken a website from concept to go live state
4. Done a bit of digital marketing i.e. ran a few SEM campaigns in Adwords
5. Created a facebook page or similar
6. Maybe worked in or ran a project team

Done those things more than once and you might call yourself a digital strategist.

Well to the low end of the market you’d clearly know much more than the average bear.  But you’d fall well short of my view of a digital strategist.

What characteristics and experience do we look for in digital strategy development people?

Strong depth of knowledge of the following:

1. Business process, business models, and business fundamentals including budgeting and financial flows
2. Marketing process, brand development, brand strategy, path to market, value propositions, productisation and product / service segmentation, market trends, direct marketing, digital marketing, and convergence of media platforms.
3. Creative direction, visual differentiation, market relevance, marketing platform integration and cohesion
4. User behaviour, usability testing, demographics, recruitment of test subjects, focus group management and unbiased processing of user feedback
5. Technical development, web technologies, mobile technologies, understanding the software development lifecycle
6. Systems integration, database development, data warehousing, and back-end platforms such as CRM and core business software.
7. Project Management, stakeholder management, methodologies such as agile, communications strategies, risk management, and governance.
8. Social Media, influence, viral, and touch points.
9. Conversion methodology, persuasion architecture, design optimisation.
10. Reporting metrics; not just traffic and conversion but behaviour interpretation, and how to leverage this
11. Consulting frameworks and processes for extracting organisational needs and converting them to digital roadmaps.
12. And more I’ve probably looked over…

And if you really want to set all that apart: 

1. Innovation capacity, ability to distil concepts into commercially applicable but boundary pushing results, an ability to step back and see the big picture and the trends
2. Hands on experience in architecting, designing, developing actual solutions
3. Leadership capacity to drive multiple stakeholders, teams, suppliers, and resources to common goals.

Lastly, how much experience is required?  How did the ‘web strategist’ earn their title?  What body of work shows their credibility?

That’s up to you to decide.

So is digital strategy all about marketing?

In many ways I’d have to say yes as sales drive organisations BUT sales don’t equal profits.  Profit comes from so many other areas such as effectiveness of support, service costs, consumer relevance, transactional and operational flow awareness etc.  And, whilst digital strategy work may be seeded by marketing types I believe a proper digital strategist is a helluva lot more than a marketer.

How can you be a master of all these trades I mention?  Won’t they be jack of all and master of none?  Potentially yes.  More likely you’ll find strength in only a handful of the areas I look for.  The ones that can cover all areas well are incredibly rare.

…so, coming back to my young design friend.  He can ‘do’ design but does he have what it takes to put together a design with a rationale and strategically justify how it will work for the client and hence minimise their risk in releasing it?  Not really, and this is what worries me about the emerging ‘web strategists’.

“..if your experience is mostly in offline marketing and you’re about to deal with the web then you need to understand that it’s a platform, it’s like an investment in software, and it needs plenty of work that you may not be used to.”…

Remember the agile approach: test and learn, tweak and try again… Well it’s back on the agenda this week with a new angle.  Sadly the throw away society mentality is ripe in so many organisations. 

Blame the platform rather than the users of it.  Sound familiar?

Point in case : Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra

After more than a year of agreeing to sponsor the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra (TSO) at significant cost to the employees and shareholders of Future Medium, and not to mention the scheduling delays our paying clients experienced while ‘we did good’ for Tasmania, the website has gone out to redevelopment because it doesn’t meet its targets.  See case study.  Incidentally we won’t be bothering to respond and wish the future supplier good health and prosperity.

So back to an old chestnut: selection criteria for web projects and specifically in this case ’being realistic about expectations within your budget’.  This might seem like a rant and a rave  (ooh a party…) but hopefully this comes across as a coherent reaction to this recent experience.

What makes someone throw a functional website away?

Working with the TSO and witnessing a change in marketing management after site release and seeing some ongoing gaps in terms of utilising the platform (that we built) has given me a very close and unfortunately negative experience with sponsoring an organisation’s web needs.  As sponsors we wrote the brief ourselves and did what we thought mattered (validated of course by TSO staff and external marketing consultants…)

So why does a project just go in the bin after such hard work?  I’ve seen this many times before but typically in state government (possibly because there’s a strange detachment from budgets and commercial return backed with a number of I.T. egotisms)… don’t shoot me for saying what we all know to be commonplace.  Private sector tends to view expenditure as an investment, not a bucket that needs emptying each 1/2 FY.  So where does that leave a charity / not-for-profit in terms of asset development?  Somewhere in between or worse than public sector?

Anyway, witnessing this ‘throw-away’ has reiterated the importance of setting criteria and project goals and building a staff and supplier relationship to keep adjusting outcomes towards emerging / previously unknown goals rather than:

STOP, THROW AWAY, and START AGAIN.

So getting back to setting website project expectations

How do we quantify our selection criteria for a website if we’re a traditional marketer and the web has forced upon us new demands as a business?  And, how do we convert that into a logical and reasonable brief for our suppliers?

I’m not going to to claim that any of this thinking is tested, definitive or even logical but merely a bunch of thoughts about the inside of a ‘marketers’ head when it comes to web criteria.  Notice I haven’t said ‘web-marketers’ criteria:  I’m questioning “what goes through the mind of an old school marketing person when they think web”?

First of all let’s pretend we know nothing about technology, have no grounding in the complexities of data storage, end user devices, or any idea at all how to build a website (‘cos that’s someone else’s issue) but we have been charged with the responsibility of pushing out products & services through the web as one of our channels.

What would our agenda be?

Image (right content, product, and style) + flexibility (ability to change at will and in any way my marketing heart desires)

If we get those right (and our product is desirable) and we use our traditional thinking of getting people to look at it then we’ll get a financial return right? (well maybe not…. but bear with me and assume so)

How important is ‘image’ to my market segment?

Let’s question the ‘image’ criteria; it brings all sorts of things to mind:

• Brand,
• Photos,
• Style,
• Content,
• Copy-writing,
• Dynamism, and
• Interactivity

What does our market segment want? Or what will they accept if I can’t give them all the bells from Christmas or the lights of Las Vegas?

I like to work on continuum’s when I conceptualise something and let’s work from ‘trash-to-great’.  What is acceptable for our market segment?

How much flexibility does my market segment need?

I need to be able to be up-to-date and changing.  My market will typically expect that – remember this is the web - it’s the saviour of all print’s failings in terms of currency of data.  But I’ve got a problem…

Image and Flexibility are inextricably linked

You can’t have a progressive web image without changing to align with market needs, inspiring the market etc., and of course this means flexibility. But poorly managed flexibility will probably damage your image so what’s the right balance?

The Axis of Greatness

So if image and flexibility are inextricably linked and I’m certain that these criteria will drive my marketing effectiveness, and thus financial/economic return, then all that needs to be considered is my investment:

(yes it looks like a penis … I meant that).

So in this line of thinking the more I invest (resources: cash and people time) then the more flexible my solution can be and the better my solutions image will be … OK.  Seems fair.  So really it looks like this:

The website challenge: injecting the right resource skill and commitment to achieve greatness

So if money were no option and I could buy all the resources I needed and commit them to the project could I achieve greatness because I could have a great image and be flexible?  Yes probably, in fact no reason why not if you know how to manage them to that outcome … but for most of us money is an issue isn’t it.

OK so I’m not Microsoft, GE, or Coke … boo hoo.  but there has to be a sweet spot right?

I believe in the law of diminishing returns (heck, I do up classic cars for a hobby and no - the last 1 extra BHP isn’t worth chasing), so somewhere on our continuum from ’shit’-to-’awesome-infinite-love-and-happiness’ (which of course has a relationship to resources) I reckon we can find a way to balance out our suppliers and internal capabilities to get a good compromise … I mean result … sorry.

Defining the sweet spot in resourcing our project to achieve greatness on the web

I want brand integrity, quick time to market, good cost/return ratio and great user interactions.

At this point I’ll switch out of being the marketer looking for a website solution and tell you specifically what drives each of these:

Integrity: comes from being consistent and of course ethical and transparent - which would involve being ‘on message’ and not pushing other agendas than the one I’m known for.

Quick time-to-market: comes from systematising all known characteristics of business needs using tools, processes and matched resource allocation (maintenance and burst capacity).

Return on investment: is driven by so many aspects and I’ll assume that traffic is being generated, social media is being harnessed to drive qualified leads, and that offline media is busting its unquantifiable, expensive balls to throw a wide net (full of holes),and that with all those things being sorted my ROI focusses squarely on production effectiveness and management prowess.

With all other ducks properly in a row then we get left with the supplier relationship.  It’s a plant in your organisations garden and it needs the same water and nutrients that all your other plants (staff etc.) need.  If you feed your plant (supplier) different food, only some of the food, or give it less light and less water then it won’t be as great as it should be, it certainly won’t be harmonious and well … you get the picture.  You might even create a weed (certainly something you don’t value).

If you want a mushroom then stick it in the dark and feed it poop …  Presumably you don’t want a mushroom so focus on cultivating something greener and more attractive!

Great user interaction is going to need MORE THAN all the market knowledge you’ve got in your office filing cabinet.  It needs the experiences of all your customer-facing staff, it needs independently verified external opinions to give objectivity, yes it needs management input and it needs a committed approach to building the right tools (functions) and keeping it in tune.  This will never be right first time but you can tweak it and keep testing and learning.

Also great user interaction isn’t solely the job of your supplier.  The supplier gives tools to work towards this but if you truly want customer engagement then you’ll need to push your staff to keep this on the boil. Or engage someone to do that as an outsourced channel manager.

So how good are your staff at fulfilling that role?  Remember you’ve got to allocate someone to the job and if you don’t ask a supplier to specifically do that you’ll get a weak outcome.

Summing up

Is it fair to expect image and flexibility to create results or did we miss out on the solid process, planning, supplier relations, and investment required to create a great result?

My point here is that if your experience is mostly in offline marketing and you’re about to deal with the web then you need to understand that it’s a platform, it’s like an investment in software, and it needs plenty of work that you may not be used to.

If you’re aware of your skill gaps then you need to trust your suppliers.  Obviously back to the example of our sponsorship deal with the TSO we didn’t get that bit right.

Anecdotally, in closing, what can we expect from spending little if we’re a not-for-profit?

The grass is always green ‘there’ isn’t it ? Even if you are for-profit?

We all want to love the outcome but are all limited by cost; unless you’re a charity and get sponsored.  If someone sponsors you and gives you the solution you’re in a rare situation and presumably you ‘needed the help’.  Ironically those who don’t pay tend not to value and in this case an investment in the web may not be seen as a platform from which to build on.  Does sponsorship give rise to the luxury to throw it away and ‘dream again’?

When you wrote your project brief and criteria did you think ‘this is the be-all to end-all’ or did you think this is ‘a journey I’m starting on and I’ll keep investing, testing, tweaking my people and my processes to the outcome I want’?

How far does the agile methodology have to reach to get commercial results?  I’ve learnt from this sponsorship deal that both the client and the supplier need to embrace agile from the start.  Not in part or on one side.  And, trust has to be the basis for the working relationship.

The project represents an excellent demonstration of our ability to create a community hub using the open source WordPress technology.  A number of commercial plugins are being utilised to manage secure content for members and shopping cart functionality.

The user engagement strategy is case studied here in our site – http://www.futuremedium.com.au/solutions/view_User-centric_design_15135195/

Use of the web ‘on the go’ is increasing.  The launch of the iPhone certainly had a lot to do with this and amounts to almost 2/3rds of mobile browsing.  Viewing typical websites on screens a few inches tall became much easier but still not quite right.

But not everyone on a mobile device is seeing the same thing.  Clever people behind the web can make different users see different things depending on the device in use.  And I don’t just mean pretty colours or fewer graphic.

A mobile version of a website can be an entirely different site in its own right with tuned functionality and special design.

Take yellow pages as an example for a moment (and let’s pretend that we’re not all using Google instead). Yellow’s website had a fairly complicated set of input boxes that relied heavily on type to drive it.

Well that’s too hard in a mobile environment – even with the iPhone it was clunky.

A mobile version of Yellow’s website is available instead and it’s got just two input boxes – that’s all – and the design is as simple and clean as possible.

This stuff has been happening quietly without most of you realising.

We built a mobile version of Petrusma Property years ago.  If you’re on a compatible device it will automatically show you a different website.

But why have a different mobile site?

Well, how many intricate search panels are customary in real estate websites?  Heaps!  When you’ve got a full keyboard in front of you and a big screen you’re relatively happy to be very descriptive about what you want.  But on a mobile device, forget it, it’s too hard!

Creating the Petrusma Property mobile site wasn’t just about simpler functionality either.  The audience is different on a mobile device.  The user has different needs and exhibits different behaviour.

We cut huge amounts of content and tuned the site down to the critical items that were relevant.  We had to think like someone standing outside a property with a mobile device in their hand prepared to invest maybe 20-30 seconds of time.

So do you need a mobile version of your site?

That’s a tricky question as it depends on what sort of content you’re delivering and whether or not it’s hard to interact with ‘on the go’.

With the rise of iPhone-like devices it’s becoming increasingly easier to view normal websites with relative effectiveness so you may be just fine with one site.

But if your business depends on ease of use in terms of delivering content that is critical to your users you’re going to have to build tuned websites for each platform your customers use.

This is a bigger problem than you may realise.  With the Internet becoming more of a fabric between the community it’s not just PC’s anymore.  It is fridges, TV sets, phones, games consoles, cars and trains.

I’d place bets that even a toilet will be connected one day!  Hooray I could flush remotely… or use the web with one hand.

My point is that whilst the range of devices accessing the web increases we need to consider the different environments in which our customers and users will interact with each other.

Users will have different needs and perhaps even different ways of physically interacting with devices – take touch screen technology as an example.

It stands to reason that any organisation on the web needs to think more broadly than just showing one web design on one device.