My Content Design Journey
How content designers can convince subject matter experts content needs to change
Convincing subject matter experts that content needs to be overhauled is a thorny challenge. I have insights on how we influence stakeholders and bring people with us.
I was painfully aware, coming into an organisation, that the people who created our existing content would be attached to it. I, too, as a journalist, got very attached to every single last word, and winced when they were crossed out by a news editor. So, I get it.
However, whilst I have often been convinced that editors only made my copy worse, I’ve also reluctantly seen when they improved my copy. More clearly conveying the message; more smoothly unfolding the narrative, so all can be followed; removing unnecessary detours. But we all need to know the reasons why you are taking an axe to my words.
So, when I was proposing changes to subject matter experts’ content, I found myself writing long rationales alongside in the margins. Until I realised that pair-writing, which I first tried on the Content Design London academy, is the best way to do this. You can explain your thinking as you go along, and this thinking can in turn be held up to the light. It is never about the person, but the content itself.
In part, it’s all about creating psychologically safe environments. We are not attacking each other, but together we are grasping towards the best versions of the content, and ourselves. Similarly, it has been great to experience how the Web Team at Dorset Council uses sociocracy to openly decide on the use of new design components and patterns. I felt emboldened to contribute more myself, given decisions are made when we all consent.
I do so in the knowledge that my contributions meant that each idea is fully tested, even if they ultimately go unchanged. And given the fact that testing and iterating are essential parts of our toolkit, not annoying obstacles, it feels safe to raise potential issues.
Given these learning experiences, I tweaked the presentation I’d been taking around the organisation on my initial discovery into the user needs of our service users. Before, I was seizing on instances of website users struggling, or leaving, as clear signs that something needed to change. I found myself trying to assemble the evidence for an unassailable argument, careful to not allow any chinks in the armour.
However, this approach has its limitations. For one, I had many interjections and frequent offers of counter-evidence. My evidence was never bullet-proof. Whilst we can and should strive to learn more about our users and our content, we’ll never have full knowledge. Once I reached this realisation, I relaxed a little.
I found myself approaching my dialogues with the product owners in a spirit of curiosity and collaboration. I emphasised that the evidence indicated potential problems with content and invited the listeners to work with me on investigating them. I asked more questions. I was prepared to be proved wrong. This page is little visited, is this service option not a good one for many people?
I found that I got a different response to this new approach. The colleagues I was talking to were more engaged and the dialogue moved us forward more. They acknowledged that I bring a fresh perspective to content that is vitally important:
It’s great you don’t know our terms!
And I learnt from the subject matter experts, too. After all, they have an excellent sense of users’ needs that is vital to our work.
So, let’s roll up our sleeves and bring together our shared expertise on meeting the needs of the people we seek to serve. So that they have the content they need to do the things they need to do.
Found this useful? Follow me as I continue my content design journey!
