rowid,title,contents,year,author,author_slug,published,url,topic
48,A Holiday Wish,"A friend and I were talking the other day about why clients spend more on toilet cleaning than design, and how the industry has changed since the mid-1990s, when we got our starts. Early in his career, my friend wrote a fine CSS book, but for years he has called himself a UX designer. And our conversation got me thinking about how I reacted to that title back when I first started hearing it.
“Just what this business needs,” I said to myself, “another phony expert.”
Okay, so I was wrong about UX, but my touchiness was not altogether unfounded. In the beginning, our industry was divided between freelance jack-of-all-trade punks, who designed and built and coded and hosted and Photoshopped and even wrote the copy when the client couldn’t come up with any, and snot-slick dot-com mega-agencies that blew up like Alice and handed out titles like impoverished nobles in the years between the world wars.
I was the former kind of designer, a guy who, having failed or just coasted along at a cluster of other careers, had suddenly, out of nowhere, blossomed into a web designer—an immensely curious designer slash coder slash writer with a near-insatiable lust to shave just one more byte from every image. We had modems back then, and I dreamed in sixteen colors. My source code was as pretty as my layouts (arguably prettier) and I hoovered up facts and opinions from newsgroups and bulletin boards as fast as any loudmouth geek could throw them. It was a beautiful life.
But soon, too soon, the professional digital agencies arose, buying loft buildings downtown, jacking in at T1 speeds, charging a hundred times what I did, and communicating with their clients in person, in large artfully bedecked rooms, wearing hand-tailored Barney’s suits and bringing back the big city bullshit I thought I’d left behind when I quit advertising to become a web designer.
Just like the big bad ad agencies of my early career, the new digital agencies stocked every meeting with a totem pole worth of ranks and titles. If the client brought five upper middle managers to the meeting, the agency did likewise. If fifteen stakeholders got to ask for a bigger logo, fifteen agency personnel showed up to take notes on the percentage of enlargement required.
But my biggest gripe was with the titles.
The bigger and more expensive the agency, the lousier it ran with newly invented titles. Nobody was a designer any more. Oh, no. Designer, apparently, wasn’t good enough. Designer was not what you called someone you threw that much money at.
Instead of designers, there were user interaction leads and consulting middleware integrators and bilabial experience park rangers and you name it. At an AIGA Miami event where I was asked to speak in the 1990s, I once watched the executive creative director of the biggest dot-com agency of the day make a presentation where he spent half his time bragging that the agency had recently shaved down the number of titles for people who basically did design stuff from forty-six to just twenty-three—he presented this as though it were an Einsteinian coup—and the other half of his time showing a film about the agency’s newly opened branch in Oslo. The Oslo footage was shot in December. I kept wondering which designer in the audience who lived in the constant breezy balminess of Miami they hoped to entice to move to dark, wintry Norway. But I digress.
Shortly after I viewed this presentation, the dot-com world imploded, brought about largely by the euphoric excess of the agencies and their clients. But people still needed websites, and my practice flourished—to the point where, in 1999, I made the terrifying transition from guy in his underwear working freelance out of his apartment to head of a fledgling design studio. (Note: you never stop working on that change.)
I had heard about experience design in the 1990s, but assumed it was a gig for people who only knew one font.
But sometime around 2004 or 2005, among my freelance and small-studio colleagues, like a hobbit in the Shire, I began hearing whispers in the trees of a new evil stirring. The fires of Mordor were burning. Web designers were turning in their HTML editing tools and calling themselves UXers.
I wasn’t sure if they pronounced it “uck-sir,” or “you-ex-er,” but I trusted their claims to authenticity about as far as I trusted the actors in a Doctor Pepper commercial when they claimed to be Peppers. I’m an UXer, you’re an UXer, wouldn’t you like to be an UXer too? No thanks, said I. I still make things. With my hands.
Such was my thinking. I may have earned an MFA at the end of some long-past period of soul confusion, but I have working-class roots and am profoundly suspicious of, well, everything, but especially of anything that smacks of pretense. I got exporting GIFs. I didn’t get how white papers and bullet points helped anybody do anything.
I was wrong. And gradually I came to know I was wrong. And before other members of my tribe embraced UX, and research, and content strategy, and the other airier consultant services, I was on board. It helped that my wife of the time was a librarian from Michigan, so I’d already bought into the cult of information architecture. And if I wasn’t exactly the seer who first understood how borderline academic practices related to UX could become as important to our medium and industry as our craft skills, at least I was down a lot faster than Judd Apatow got with feminism. But I digress.
I love the web and all the people in it. Today I understand design as a strategic practice above all. The promise of the web, to make all knowledge accessible to all people, won’t be won by HTML5, WCAG 2, and responsive web design alone.
We are all designers. You may call yourself a front-end developer, but if you spend hours shaving half-seconds off an interaction, that’s user experience and you, my friend, are a designer. If the client asks, “Can you migrate all my old content to the new CMS?” and you answer, “Of course we can, but should we?”, you are a designer. Even our users are designers. Think about it.
Once again, as in the dim dumb dot-com past, we seem to be divided by our titles. But, O, my friends, our varied titles are only differing facets of the same bright gem. Sisters, brothers, we are all designers. Love on! Love on!
And may all your web pages, cards, clusters, clumps, asides, articles, and relational databases be bright.",2014,Jeffrey Zeldman,jeffreyzeldman,2014-12-18T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2014/a-holiday-wish/,ux
47,Developing Robust Deployment Procedures,"Once you have developed your site, how do you make it live on your web hosting? For many years the answer was to log on to your server and upload the files via FTP. Over time most hosts and FTP clients began to support SFTP, ensuring your files were transmitted over a secure connection. The process of deploying a site however remained the same.
There are issues with deploying a site in this way. You are essentially transferring files one by one to the server without any real management of that transfer. If the transfer fails for some reason, you may end up with a site that is only half updated. It can then be really difficult to work out what hasn’t been replaced or added, especially where you are updating an existing site. If you are updating some third-party software your update may include files that should be removed, but that may not be obvious to you and you risk leaving outdated files littering your file system. Updating using (S)FTP is a fragile process that leaves you open to problems caused by both connectivity and human error. Is there a better way to do this?
You’ll be glad to know that there is. A modern professional deployment workflow should have you moving away from fragile manual file transfers to deployments linked to code committed into source control.
The benefits of good practice
You may never have experienced any major issues while uploading files over FTP, and good FTP clients can help. However, there are other benefits to moving to modern deployment practices.
No surprises when you launch
If you are deploying in the way I suggest in this article you should have no surprises when you launch because the code you committed from your local environment should be the same code you deploy – and to staging if you have a staging server. A missing vital file won’t cause things to start throwing errors on updating the live site.
Being able to work collaboratively
Source control and good deployment practice makes working with your clients and other developers easy. Deploying first to a staging server means you can show your client updates and then push them live. If you subcontract some part of the work, you can give your subcontractor the ability to deploy to staging, leaving you with the final push to launch, once you know you are happy with the work.
Having a proper backup of site files with access to them from anywhere
The process I will outline requires the use of hosted, external source control. This gives you a backup of your latest commit and the ability to clone those files and start working on them from any machine, wherever you are.
Being able to jump back into a site quickly when the client wants a few changes
When doing client work it is common for some work to be handed over, then several months might go by without you needing to update the site. If you don’t have a good process in place, just getting back to work on it may take several hours for what could be only a few hours of work in itself. A solid method for getting your local copy up to date and deploying your changes live can cut that set-up time down to a few minutes.
The tool chain
In the rest of this article I assume that your current practice is to deploy your files over (S)FTP, using an FTP client. You would like to move to a more robust method of deployment, but without blowing apart your workflow and spending all Christmas trying to put it back together again. Therefore I’m selecting the most straightforward tools to get you from A to B.
Source control
Perhaps you already use some kind of source control for your sites. Today that is likely to be Git but you might also use Subversion or Mercurial. If you are not using any source control at all then I would suggest you choose Git, and that is what I will be working with in this article.
When you work with Git, you always have a local repository. This is where your changes are committed. You also have the option to push those changes to a remote repository; for example, GitHub. You may well have come across GitHub as somewhere you can go to download open source code. However, you can also set up private repositories for sites whose code you don’t want to make publicly accessible.
A hosted Git repository gives you somewhere to push your commits to and deploy from, so it’s a crucial part of our tool chain.
A deployment service
Once you have your files pushed to a remote repository, you then need a way to deploy them to your staging environment and live server. This is the job of a deployment service.
This service will connect securely to your hosting, and either automatically (or on the click of a button) transfer files from your Git commit to the hosting server. If files need removing, the service should also do this too, so you can be absolutely sure that your various environments are the same.
Tools to choose from
What follows are not exhaustive lists, but any of these should allow you to deploy your sites without FTP.
Hosted Git repositories
GitHub
Beanstalk
Bitbucket
Standalone deployment tools
Deploy
dploy.io
FTPloy
I’ve listed Beanstalk as a hosted Git repository, though it also includes a bundled deployment tool. Dploy.io is a standalone version of that tool just for deployment. In this tutorial I have chosen two separate services to show how everything fits together, and because you may already be using source control. If you are setting up all of this for the first time then using Beanstalk saves having two accounts – and I can personally recommend them.
Putting it all together
The steps we are going to work through are:
Getting your local site into a local Git repository
Pushing the files to a hosted repository
Connecting a deployment tool to your web hosting
Setting up a deployment
Get your local site into a local Git repository
Download and install Git for your operating system.
Open up a Terminal window and tell Git your name using the following command (use the name you will set up on your hosted repository).
> git config --global user.name ""YOUR NAME""
Use the next command to give Git your email address. This should be the address that you will use to sign up for your remote repository.
> git config --global user.email ""YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS""
Staying in the command line, change to the directory where you keep your site files. If your files are in /Users/rachel/Sites/mynicewebite you would type:
> cd /Users/rachel/Sites/mynicewebsite
The next command tells Git that we want to create a new Git repository here.
> git init
We then add our files:
> git add .
Then commit the files:
> git commit -m “Adding initial files”
The bit in quotes after -m is a message describing what you are doing with this commit. It’s important to add something useful here to remind yourself later why you made the changes included in the commit.
Your local files are now in a Git repository! However, everything should be just the same as before in terms of working on the files or viewing them in a local web server. The only difference is that you can add and commit changes to this local repository.
Want to know more about Git? There are some excellent resources in a range of formats here.
Setting up a hosted Git repository
I’m going to use Atlassian Bitbucket for my first example as they offer a free hosted and private repository.
Create an account on Bitbucket. Then create a new empty repository and give it a name that will identify the repository easily.
Click Getting Started and under Command Line select “I have an existing project”. This will give you a set of instructions to run on the command line. The first instruction is just to change into your working directory as we did before. We then add a remote repository, and run two commands to push everything up to Bitbucket.
cd /path/to/my/repo
git remote add origin https://myuser@bitbucket.org/myname/24ways-tutorial.git
git push -u origin --all
git push -u origin --tags
When you run the push command you will be asked for the password that you set for Bitbucket. Having entered that, you should be able to view the files of your site on Bitbucket by selecting the navigation option Source in the sidebar.
You will also be able to see commits. When we initially committed our files locally we added the message “Adding initial files”. If you select Commits from the sidebar you’ll see we have one commit, with the message we set locally. You can imagine how useful this becomes when you can look back and see why you made certain changes to a project that perhaps you haven’t worked on for six months.
Before working on your site locally you should run:
> git pull
in your working directory to make sure you have all of the most up-to-date files. This is especially important if someone else might work on them, or you just use multiple machines.
You then make your changes and add any changed or modified files, for example:
> git add index.php
Commit the change locally:
> git commit -m “updated the homepage”
Then push it to Bitbucket:
> git push origin master
If you want to work on your files on a different computer you clone them using the following command:
> git clone https://myuser@bitbucket.org/myname/24ways-tutorial.git
You then have a copy of your files that is already a Git repository with the Bitbucket repository set up as a remote, so you are all ready to start work.
Connecting a deployment tool to your repository and web hosting
The next step is deploying files. I have chosen to use a deployment tool called Deploy as it has support for Bitbucket. It does have a monthly charge – but offers a free account for open source projects.
Sign up for your account then log in and create your first project. Select Create an empty project. Under Configure Repository Details choose Bitbucket and enter your username and password.
If Deploy can connect, it will show you your list of projects. Select the one you want.
The next screen is Add New Server and here you need to configure the server that you want to deploy to. You might set up more than one server per project. In an ideal world you would deploy to a staging server for your client preview changes and then deploy once everything is signed off. For now I’ll assume you just want to set up your live site.
Give the server a name; I usually use Production for the live web server. Then choose the protocol to connect with. Unless your host really does not support SFTP (which is pretty rare) I would choose that instead of FTP.
You now add the same details your host gave you to log in with your SFTP client, including the username and password. The Path on server should be where your files are on the server. When you log in with an SFTP client and you get put in the directory above public_html then you should just be able to add public_html here.
Once your server is configured you can deploy. Click Deploy now and choose the server you just set up. Then choose the last commit (which will probably be selected for you) and click Preview deployment. You will then get a preview of which files will change if you run the deployment: the files that will be added and any that will be removed. At the very top of that screen you should see the commit message you entered right back when you initially committed your files locally.
If all looks good, run the deployment.
You have taken the first steps to a more consistent and robust way of deploying your websites. It might seem like quite a few steps at first, but you will very soon come to realise how much easier deploying a live site is through this process.
Your new procedure step by step
Edit your files locally as before, testing them through a web server on your own computer.
Commit your changes to your local Git repository.
Push changes to the remote repository.
Log into the deployment service.
Hit the Deploy now button.
Preview the changes.
Run the deployment and then check your live site.
Taking it further
I have tried to keep things simple in this article because so often, once you start to improve processes, it is easy to get bogged down in all the possible complexities. If you move from deploying with an FTP client to working in the way I have outlined above, you’ve taken a great step forward in creating more robust processes. You can continue to improve your procedures from this point.
Staging servers for client preview
When we added our server we could have added an additional server to use as a staging server for clients to preview their site on. This is a great use of a cheap VPS server, for example. You can set each client up with a subdomain – clientname.yourcompany.com – and this becomes the place where they can view changes before you deploy them.
In that case you might deploy to the staging server, let the client check it out and then go back and deploy the same commit to the live server.
Using Git branches
As you become more familiar with using Git, and especially if you start working with other people, you might need to start developing using branches. You can then have a staging branch that deploys to staging and a production branch that is always a snapshot of what has been pushed to production. This guide from Beanstalk explains how this works.
Automatic deployment to staging
I wouldn’t suggest doing automatic deployment to the live site. It’s worth having someone on hand hitting the button and checking that everything worked nicely. If you have configured a staging server, however, you can set it up to deploy the changes each time a commit is pushed to it.
If you use Bitbucket and Deploy you would create a deployment hook on Bitbucket to post to a URL on Deploy when a push happens to deploy the code. This can save you a few steps when you are just testing out changes. Even if you have made lots of changes to the staging deployment, the commit that you push live will include them all, so you can do that manually once you are happy with how things look in staging.
Further Reading
The tutorials from Git Client Tower, already mentioned in this article, are a great place to start if you are new to Git.
A presentation from Liam Dempsey showing how to use the GitHub App to connect to Bitbucket
Try Git from Code School
The Git Workbook a self study guide to Git from Lorna Mitchell
Get set up for the new year
I love to start the New Year with a clean slate and improved processes. If you are still wrangling files with FTP then this is one thing you could tick off your list to save you time and energy in 2015. Post to the comments if you have suggestions of tools or ideas for ways to enhance this type of set-up for those who have already taken the first steps.",2014,Rachel Andrew,rachelandrew,2014-12-04T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2014/developing-robust-deployment-procedures/,process
46,Responsive Enhancement,"24 ways has been going strong for ten years. That’s an aeon in internet timescales. Just think of all the changes we’ve seen in that time: the rise of Ajax, the explosion of mobile devices, the unrecognisably changed landscape of front-end tooling.
Tools and technologies come and go, but one thing has remained constant for me over the past decade: progressive enhancement.
Progressive enhancement isn’t a technology. It’s more like a way of thinking. Instead of thinking about the specifics of how a finished website might look, progressive enhancement encourages you to think about the fundamental meaning of what the website is providing. So instead of thinking of a website in terms of its ideal state in a modern browser on a nice widescreen device, progressive enhancement allows you to think about the core functionality in a more abstract way.
Once you’ve figured out what the core functionality is – adding an item to a shopping cart, posting a message, sharing a photo – then you can enable that functionality in the simplest possible way. That usually means starting with good old-fashioned HTML. Links and forms are often all you need. Then, once you have the core functionality working in a basic way, you can start to enhance to make a progressively better experience for more modern browsers.
The advantage of working this way isn’t just that your site will work in older browsers (albeit in a rudimentary way). It also ensures that if anything goes wrong in a modern browser, it won’t be catastrophic.
There’s a common misconception that progressive enhancement means that you’ll spend your time dealing with older browsers, but in fact the opposite is true. Putting the basic functionality into place doesn’t take very long at all. And once you’ve done that, you’re free to spend all your time experimenting with the latest and greatest browser technologies, secure in the knowledge that even if they aren’t universally supported yet, that’s OK: you’ve already got your fallback in place.
The key to thinking about web development this way is realising that there isn’t one final interface – there could be many, slightly different interfaces depending on the properties and capabilities of any particular user agent at any particular moment. And that’s OK. Websites do not need to look the same in every browser.
Once you truly accept that, it’s an immensely liberating idea. Instead of spending your time trying to make websites look the same in wildly varying browsers, you can spend your time making sure that the core functionality of what you build works everywhere, while providing the best possible experience for more capable browsers.
Allow me to demonstrate with a simple example: navigation.
Step one: core functionality
Let’s say we have a straightforward website about the twelve days of Christmas, with a page for each day. The core functionality is pretty clear:
To read about any particular day.
To browse from day to day.
The first is easily satisfied by marking up the text with headings, paragraphs and all the usual structural HTML elements. The second is satisfied by providing a list of good ol’ hyperlinks.
Now where’s the best place to position this navigation list? Personally, I’m a big fan of the jump-to-footer pattern. This puts the content first and the navigation second. At the top of the page there’s a link with an href attribute pointing to the fragment identifier for the navigation.
Menu
...
See the footer-anchor pattern in action.
Because it’s nothing more than a hyperlink, this works in just about every browser since the dawn of the web. Following hyperlinks is what web browsers were made to do (hence the name).
Step two: layout as an enhancement
The footer-anchor pattern is a particularly neat solution on small-screen devices, like mobile phones. Once more screen real estate is available, I can use the magic of CSS to reposition the navigation above the content. I could use position: absolute, flexbox or, in this case, display: table.
@media all and (min-width: 35em) {
.control {
display: none;
}
body {
display: table;
}
[role=""navigation""] {
display: table-caption;
columns: 6 15em;
}
}
See the styles for wider screens in action
Step three: enhance!
Right. At this point I’m providing core functionality to everyone, and I’ve got nice responsive styles for wider screens. I could stop here, but the real advantage of progressive enhancement is that I don’t have to. From here on, I can go crazy adding all sorts of fancy enhancements for modern browsers, without having to worry about providing a fallback for older browsers – the fallback is already in place.
What I’d really like is to provide a swish off-canvas pattern for small-screen devices. Here’s my plan:
Position the navigation under the main content.
Listen out for the .control links being activated and intercept that action.
When those links are activated, toggle a class of .active on the body.
If the .active class exists, slide the content out to reveal the navigation.
Here’s the CSS for positioning the content and navigation:
@media all and (max-width: 35em) {
[role=""main""] {
transition: all .25s;
width: 100%;
position: absolute;
z-index: 2;
top: 0;
right: 0;
}
[role=""navigation""] {
width: 75%;
position: absolute;
z-index: 1;
top: 0;
right: 0;
}
.active [role=""main""] {
transform: translateX(-75%);
}
}
In my JavaScript, I’m going to listen out for any clicks on the .control links and toggle the .active class on the body accordingly:
(function (win, doc) {
'use strict';
var linkclass = 'control',
activeclass = 'active',
toggleClassName = function (element, toggleClass) {
var reg = new RegExp('(s|^)' + toggleClass + '(s|$)');
if (!element.className.match(reg)) {
element.className += ' ' + toggleClass;
} else {
element.className = element.className.replace(reg, '');
}
},
navListener = function (ev) {
ev = ev || win.event;
var target = ev.target || ev.srcElement;
if (target.className.indexOf(linkclass) !== -1) {
ev.preventDefault();
toggleClassName(doc.body, activeclass);
}
};
doc.addEventListener('click', navListener, false);
}(this, this.document));
I’m all set, right? Not so fast!
Cutting the mustard
I’ve made the assumption that addEventListener will be available in my JavaScript. That isn’t a safe assumption. That’s because JavaScript – unlike HTML or CSS – isn’t fault-tolerant. If you use an HTML element or attribute that a browser doesn’t understand, or if you use a CSS selector, property or value that a browser doesn’t understand, it’s no big deal. The browser will just ignore what it doesn’t understand: it won’t throw an error, and it won’t stop parsing the file.
JavaScript is different. If you make an error in your JavaScript, or use a JavaScript method or property that a browser doesn’t recognise, that browser will throw an error, and it will stop parsing the file. That’s why it’s important to test for features before using them in JavaScript. That’s also why it isn’t safe to rely on JavaScript for core functionality.
In my case, I need to test for the existence of addEventListener:
(function (win, doc) {
if (!win.addEventListener) {
return;
}
...
}(this, this.document));
The good folk over at the BBC call this kind of feature test cutting the mustard. If a browser passes the test, it cuts the mustard, and so it gets the enhancements. If a browser doesn’t cut the mustard, it doesn’t get the enhancements. And that’s fine because, remember, websites don’t need to look the same in every browser.
I want to make sure that my off-canvas styles are only going to apply to mustard-cutting browsers. I’m going to use JavaScript to add a class of .cutsthemustard to the document:
(function (win, doc) {
if (!win.addEventListener) {
return;
}
...
var enhanceclass = 'cutsthemustard';
doc.documentElement.className += ' ' + enhanceclass;
}(this, this.document));
Now I can use the existence of that class name to adjust my CSS:
@media all and (max-width: 35em) {
.cutsthemustard [role=""main""] {
transition: all .25s;
width: 100%;
position: absolute;
z-index: 2;
top: 0;
right: 0;
}
.cutsthemustard [role=""navigation""] {
width: 75%;
position: absolute;
z-index: 1;
top: 0;
right: 0;
}
.cutsthemustard .active [role=""main""] {
transform: translateX(-75%);
}
}
See the enhanced mustard-cutting off-canvas navigation. Remember, this only applies to small screens so you might have to squish your browser window.
Enhance all the things!
This was a relatively simple example, but it illustrates the thinking behind progressive enhancement: once you’re providing the core functionality to everyone, you’re free to go crazy with all the latest enhancements for modern browsers.
Progressive enhancement doesn’t mean you have to provide all the same functionality to everyone – quite the opposite. That’s why it’s key to figure out early on what the core functionality is, and make sure that it can be provided with the most basic technology. But from that point on, you’re free to add many more features that aren’t mission-critical. You should reward more capable browsers by giving them more of those features, such as animation in CSS, geolocation in JavaScript, and new input types in HTML.
Like I said, progressive enhancement isn’t a technology. It’s a way of thinking. Once you start thinking this way, you’ll be prepared for whatever the next ten years throws at us.",2014,Jeremy Keith,jeremykeith,2014-12-09T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2014/responsive-enhancement/,code
45,Is Agile Harder for Agencies?,"I once sat in a pitch meeting and watched a new business exec tell a potential client that his agency followed an agile workflow process at all times. The potential client nodded wisely, and they both agreed that agile was indeed the way to go.
The meeting progressed and they signed off on a contract for a massive project, to be delivered in a standard waterfall fashion, with all manner of phases and key deliverables.
Of course both of them left the meeting perfectly happy, because neither of them knew nor cared what an agile workflow process might be.
That was about five years ago. As 2015 heaves into view I think it’s fair to say that attitudes have changed. Perhaps the same number of people claim to do Agile™ now as in 2010, but I think more of them are telling the truth.
As a developer in an agency that works primarily with larger organisations, this year I have started to see a shift from agencies pushing agile methodologies with their clients, to clients requesting and even demanding agile practices from their agencies. Only a couple of years ago this would have been unusual behaviour.
So what’s the problem?
We should be happy then, no? Those of us in agencies will get to spend more time delivering great products, and less time arguing over out-of-date functional specs or battling through an adversarial change management procedure because somebody had a good idea during development rather than planning. We get to be a little bit more like our brothers and sisters in vaunted teams like the Government Digital Service, which is using agile approaches to great effect on projects that have a real benefit to their users.
Almost. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that adhering to an agile framework such as scrum is more difficult within an agency/client structure than it is for an in-house development team.
This is no surprise. The Agile Manifesto was written in 2001 by a group of software developers for their own use. Many of the underlying principles of a framework like Scrum assume the existence of an in-house team, working on a highly technical project, and working for the business that employs them. The agency/client model must to some extent be retrofitted into agile frameworks. It can be done though, and there are plenty of agencies out there doing it well.
This article isn’t meant to be another introduction to agile techniques – there are too many of those online already. This article is for people just dipping their toes into this way of working. I’ve laid out a few of the key reasons why adopting a more fully agile approach seems difficult, at least initially, for those of us working in agencies.
1. Agile asks more of your clients
When a team adopts Scrum everyone has to get used to a number of unfamiliar roles and rituals. Few team members have a steeper learning curve than the person designated as the product owner.
The product owner carries a lot of weight on their shoulders. They have to uphold the overall vision for the project. They are also meant to be the primary author of the project’s user stories (short atomic descriptions of project features which are testable and relate to a real business need). They should own this list of stories (called a backlog) and should be able to prioritise the order in which the stories are developed, to ensure that the project is delivering real value to the business early and often.
When a burst of work is completed (bursts of work in Scrum are called sprints), the product owner leads a review or show-and-tell session with the wider project stakeholders. The product owner needs to understand the work that has been completed, and must champion it to the business. Finally, and most importantly, the product owner is responsible for managing the feedback and requests from stakeholders in such a way that they don’t derail the project team’s agreed workload for any given sprint, without upsetting or offending any of the stakeholders – some of whom may outrank the product owner.
If you follow that spec, this is a job for a superhuman in any organisational context. And within the agency/client structure this superhuman needs to be client-side for the process to be at its most effective.
So your client, who in the past might have briefed a project to an agency team and then had the work presented back to them every few weeks, is now asked to be involved with the team on a daily basis; to fight on behalf of the team when new or difficult requests come in from senior figures within their organisation; and to present the agency’s work to their own colleagues after each sprint. It’s a big change if all that gets dropped into someone’s lap without warning.
There are several ways agencies can mitigate this issue. The ScrumAlliance suggests some alternative ways to structure the product owner role. The approach I have taken in the past is simply to start slow, and gradually move more of the product owner role over to the client side as and when they feel comfortable with it. If you’re working together long-term on a project, and you both see tangible improvements in the quality of the work after adopting an agile process, then your client is more likely to be open to further changes as the partnership progresses.
2. My client wants fixed costs, fixed deadlines and a fixed scope
I know. Mine too. Of course they do – it is the way that agencies and clients have agreed to work in digital and other creative service industries for a very long time. On both sides of the fence we’re used to thinking about projects in this way.
Of the three, fixing scope is the one that agile purists would rail hardest against. The more time we spend working on digital projects, the less sense it makes. James Archer, CEO of UI/UX design agency Forty puts it like this:
For me, the Agile approach is really about acknowledging that disturbing truth that every project manager knows, but has trouble admitting. The truth that the project plan is wrong. Scope creep. Change orders. Shifting priorities. New directions. We act shocked and appalled when those things happen during our carefully planned project, even though they happen on every project ever.
Successful relationships require trust and honesty, and we shouldn’t be afraid of discussing this aspect of project management. If you do move away from a fixed scope of work, then the other two items (costs and timings) can be fixed – more or less. If you can get your clients to buy into this from a standing start then you are doing well. In fact you probably deserve a promotion. For most of us this is a continual discussion.
Anyway, as soon as you’ve made headway on the argument that it makes little or no sense to try and fix the scope of a digital project, you usually run into a related concern, which we’ll look at next.
3. Fear of uncontrolled costs
We all know that a dog is for life, not just for Christmas. At this time of year perhaps we should reiterate to everyone that digital products and services also need support and love once we have taken the decision to bring them into the world.
More organisations are realising that their investment in digital platforms should be viewed as an operational expenditure rather than a capital expenditure. But from time to time we will find ourselves working on projects for people who have a finite amount of money to invest in a product at a given point in time. When agencies start talking about these projects as rolling investments those responsible can understandably worry about their costs running out of control.
There’s another factor at play here. Agile, on the whole, prefers to derive a cost for services from the hours a team spends working on a project. In other industries this is referred to as charging for time and materials, and there seems to be an ingrained distrust in this approach among people in general. See, for example, the Citizens Advice Bureau’s “Top tips for employing a builder”:
“Bear in mind that if you pay a daily rate, this makes it easier for a builder to string the work out and get more money so agree what you will do if the job takes longer than expected.”
It’s hard not to feel stung if you are in the builder’s shoes here, as we are when we’re talking about our role as an agency. But if you’ve ever haggled with a builder over time and materials, and also moaned about your clients misunderstanding agile methods, take a moment to reflect on the similarities from your client’s point of view.
Again, there are some things we can do to mitigate this issue. Some agencies put in place a service level agreement around their team’s velocity (an agile-related term related to how much work a team delivers in any given sprint) and this can help.
As the industry moves further towards a long-term approach to investment in digital I hope this fear will subside. But that shift in approach leads to the final concern I want to address.
4. Agency structures need shaking up
If you work for a company that has spent many years developing a business model around the waterfall process, you may have to break through many layers of entrenched thinking in order to establish new practices and effect organisational change.
There are consultancies that exist specifically to help agencies through their own agile transformation. One of these companies, AgencyAgile, provides a helpful list of common pitfalls. They emphasise the need to look at your whole agency’s structure, rather than simply encouraging project teams to adopt new workflows.
Even awesomely run Agile projects can have a limited impact on the overall organization.
If you’re serious about changing the way your company approaches projects then try talking to people who sit outside the usual project delivery team. Speak to the finance department if you have one, and try to convince your senior management team if they’re not already on board. And definitely speak to your new business people, who go out there and win the projects you get to work on.
It’s these people who need to understand the potential business benefits of working in a new way, and also which of their existing habits and behaviours they might need to change to accommodate a new approach.
Otherwise you’ll find yourself with a team of designers, developers and project managers who are ready and waiting to deliver work in an iterative and collaborative way, but by the time they get hold of the project a cost has already been agreed, a deadline has been imposed, and a functional requirements document has been painstakingly put together. Nobody wins in this situation.
Conclusion
So where should we go from here? I certainly don’t have hard and fast answers – I’m not sure that they exist in a one-size-fits-all approach for agencies.
There are plenty of smart people thinking about this problem. It’s a hot topic right now. Earlier in the year a London-based meetup was established called Agile for Agencies. If you’re in the capital and want to discuss these issues with your peers it’s a great opportunity to do so.
I’ve mentioned James Archer and Forty already. Both James and Paul Boag have written in the last twelve months on this subject. They both come out on the side of the argument that suggests you adopt agile principles, but don’t have to worry about the rituals if they don’t fit in with your practices.
Personally, I think the rituals and the discipline mandated by an agile framework like Scrum can provide a great deal of value to your team, even it if is hard to implement within an agency culture that has traditionally structured its work and its services in another way.
In whatever way you figure out the details, when your teams collaborate with your clients rather than work for them at arm’s length, and when everyone prioritises frequent delivery, reflection and iteration over exhaustive scoping and planning, I believe you’ll see a tangible difference in the quality of the work that you create.",2014,Charlie Perrins,charlieperrins,2014-12-12T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2014/is-agile-harder-for-agencies/,process
44,Taglines and Truisms,"To bring her good luck, “white rabbits” was the first thing that my grandmother said out loud on the first day of every month. We all need a little luck, but we shouldn’t rely on it, especially when it comes to attracting new clients.
The first thing we say to a prospective client when they visit our website for the first time helps them to understand not only what we do but why we do it. We can also help them understand why they should choose to work with us over one of our competitors.
Take a minute or two to look at your competitors’ websites. What’s the first thing that they say about themselves? Do they say that they “design delightful digital experiences,” “craft beautiful experiences” or “create remarkable digital experiences?”
It’s easy to find companies who introduce themselves with what they do, their proposition, but what a company does is only part of their story. Their beliefs and values, what they stand for why they do what they do are also important.
When someone visits our websites for the first time, we have only a brief moment to help them understand us. To help us we can learn from the advertising industry, where the job of a tagline is to communicate a concept, deliver a message and sell a product, often using only a few words.
When an advertising campaign is effective, its tagline stays with you, sometimes long after that campaign is over. For example, can you remember which company or brand these taglines help to sell? (Answers at the bottom of the article:)
The Ultimate Driving Machine
Just Do It
Don’t Leave Home Without It
A clever tagline isn’t just a play on words, although it can include one. A tagline does far more than help make your company memorable. Used well, it brings together notions of what makes your company and what you offer special. Then it expresses those notions in a few words or possibly a short sentence.
I’m sure that everyone can find examples of company slogans written in the type of language that should stay within the walls of a marketing department. We can also find taglines where the meaning is buried so deep that the tag itself becomes effectively meaningless.
A meaningful tagline supports our ideas about who we are and what we offer, and provides a platform for different executions of them, sometimes over a period of time. For a tagline to work well, it must allow for current and future ideas about a brand.
It must also be meaningful to our brand and describe a truism, a truth that need not be a fact or statistic, but something that’s true about us, who we are, what we do and why that’s distinctive. It can be obvious, funny, serious or specific but above all it must be true. It should also be difficult to argue with, making your messages difficult to argue with too.
I doubt that I need remind you who this tagline belongs to:
There are some things money can’t buy. For everything else there’s MasterCard.
That tagline was launched in 1997 by McCann-Erickson along with the “Priceless” campaign and it helped establish MasterCard as a friendlier credit card company, one with a sense of humour.
MasterCard’s truism is that the things which really matter in life can’t be bought. They are worth more than anything that a monetary value can be applied to. In expressing that truism through the tagline, MasterCard’s advertising tells people to use not just any credit card, but their MasterCard, to pay for everything they buy.
“Guinness is good for you” may have been a stretch, but “Good things come to those who wait” builds on the truism that patience is a virtue and therefore a good pint of Guinness takes time to pour (119.5 seconds. I know you were wondering.)
The fact that British Airways flies to more destinations than any other airline is their truism, and led their advertisers to the now famous tagline, “The world’s favourite airline.”
At my company, Stuff & Nonsense, we’ve been thinking about taglines as we think about our position within an industry that seems full of companies who “design”, “craft”, and “create” “delightful”, “beautiful”, “remarkable digital experiences”.
Much of what made us different has changed along with the type of work we’re interested in doing. Our work’s expanded beyond websites and now includes design for mobile and other media. It’s true we can’t know how or where it will be seen. The ways that we make it are flexible too as we’re careful not to become tied to particular tools or approaches.
It’s also true that we’re a small team. One that’s flexible enough to travel around the world to work alongside our clients. We join their in-house teams and we collaborate with them in ways that other agencies often find more difficult. We know that our clients appreciate our flexibility and have derived enormous value from it. We know that we’ve won business because of it and that it’s now a big part of our proposition.
Our truism is that we’re flexible, “Fabulously flexible” as our tagline now expresses. And although we know that there may be other agencies who can be similarly flexible – after all, being flexible is not a unique selling proposition – only we do it so fabulously.
As the old year rolls into the new, how will your company describe what you do in 2015? More importantly, how will you tell prospective clients why you do it, what matters to you and why they should work with you?
Start by writing a list of truisms about your company. Write as many as you can, but then whittle that list down to just one, the most important truth. Work on that truism to create a tagline that’s meaningful, difficult to be argue with and, above all, uniquely yours.
Answers
The Ultimate Driving Machine (BMW)
Just Do It (Nike)
Don’t Leave Home Without It (American Express)",2014,Andy Clarke,andyclarke,2014-12-23T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2014/taglines-and-truisms/,business
43,Content Production Planning,"While everyone agrees that getting the content of a website right is vital to its success, unless you’re lucky enough to have an experienced editor or content strategist on board, planning content production often seems to fall through the cracks. One reason is that, for most of the team, it feels like someone else’s problem. Not necessarily a specific person’s problem. Just someone else’s. It’s only when everyone starts urgently asking when the content is going to be ready, that it becomes clear the answer is, “Not as soon as we’d like it”.
The good news is that there are some quick and simple things you can do, even if you’re not the official content person on a project, to get everyone on the same content planning page.
Content production planning boils down to answering three deceptively simple questions:
What content do you need?
How much of it do you need?
Who’s going to make it?
Even if it’s not your job to come up with the answers, by asking these questions early enough and agreeing who is going to come up with the answers, you’ll be a long way towards avoiding the last-minute content problems which so often plague projects.
How much content do we need?
People tend to underestimate two crucial things about content: how much content they need, and how long that content takes to produce.
When I ask someone how big their website is – how many pages it contains – I usually double or triple the answer I get. That’s because almost everyone’s mental model of their website greatly underestimates its true size. You can see the problem for yourself if you look at a site map. Site maps are great at representing a mental model of a website. But because they’re a deliberate simplification they naturally lead us to underestimate how much content is involved in populating them.
Several years ago I was asked to help a client create a new microsite (their word) which they wanted ready in two weeks for a conference they were attending. Here’s the site map they had in mind. At first glance it looks like a pretty small website. Maybe twenty to thirty pages?
That’s what the client thought.
But see those boxes which are multiple boxes stacked on top of one another, for product categories, descriptions and supporting material? They’re known as page stacks, and page stacks are the content strategy equivalent of Here Be Dragons.
Say we have:
five product categories
each with five products
which all have two or three supporting documents
Those are still fairly small numbers. But small numbers multiplied by other small numbers tend to lead to big numbers.
5 categories = 5 category descriptions
plus
5 categories × 5 products each = 25 product descriptions
plus
25 products × 2.5 (average) supporting documents = 63 supporting documents
equals
93 pages
Suddenly our twenty- or thirty-page website is running towards one hundred.
That’s probably enough to get most project teams to sit up and take notice. But there’s still the danger of underestimating how long it’s going to take to create the content. After all, assuming the supporting documents already exist in some form, there are only about twenty-five to thirty pages of new copy to write.
How much work is it?
Again, we have the problem that small numbers when multiplied by other small numbers tend to lead to big numbers. Let’s make a rough guess that it’ll take four hours to write each product category and description page we need. That feels a little conservative if we’re writing stuff from scratch, but assuming the person doing it already knows the products fairly well it’s not unreasonable.
30 pages × 4 hours each = 120 hours
120 hours ÷ 7.5 working hours a day = 16 days
Ouch.
At this point it’s pretty clear we’re not getting this site launched in two weeks.
The goal is the conversation
By breaking down the site into its content components, and putting some rough estimates on how long each might take to produce, the client instantly realised that there was no way they would be ready to launch it in two weeks. Although we still didn’t know exactly when it would be ready, getting to that realisation right at the start of the project was a major win for everybody. Without it, the design agency would have bust a gut to get the design, front-end and CMS all done in double-quick time, only to find it was all for nothing as barely half the content was ready. As it was, an early discussion about content, albeit a brief one, bought everyone time to tackle the project properly, without pulling any long nights or working weekends.
If you haven’t been able to get people to discuss content plans for the project, these kinds of rough estimates should give you enough evidence to get everyone to start taking it seriously. Your goal is to get everyone on the project to a place where they are ready to talk in detail about who is going to create this content, and how long it’s really going to take them, and to get to those conversations before lack of content becomes a problem.
Be careful though. It’s best to talk in ranges and round numbers when your estimates are this uncertain. And watch those multipliers. Given small numbers multiplied by other small numbers lead to big numbers, changing just one number can greatly change the overall estimate. I like to run a couple of different scenarios to check what things look like if I’ve under- or overestimated either how many pages we’re going to need, or how long they’re going to take to create. For example:
Top end: 30 pages × 5 hours = 150 hours, or 20 days
Bottom end: 25 pages × 4 hours = 100 hours, or 13.3 days
So rather than say, “I estimate the content will take around sixteen days to produce”, I’m going to say, “I think the content will take about three to four weeks to produce”. Even with qualifiers like estimate and around, sixteen days sounds too precise. Whereas three to four weeks instantly conveys that this is just a rough figure.
Who’s going to make it?
So, people tend to underestimate two crucial things about content: how much content they need, and how long content takes to write. At this stage, you’re still in danger of the latter, because it’s tempting to simply estimate how much time content takes to write (or record, if we’re talking audio or visual content), and overlook all the other work that needs to goes on around it.
Take 24 ways as an example. In terms of our three deceptively simple questions: what is practical articles about web design; how many is twenty-four, one for each day of Advent; and who are experts working on the web, one to write each article.
But there’s another who you might not have considered.
Someone needs to select those authors in the first place, make sure they deliver their articles on time (and find someone to replace them if they don’t), review drafts, copy-edit and proofread final versions, upload them to the site, promote them, keep an eye on the comments and make sure there are still presents under the tree on Christmas morning.
Even if each of those tasks only takes an hour or so, it then needs multiplying by twenty-four (except the presents, obviously). And as we’ve already seen, small numbers multiplied by small numbers quickly turn into much bigger numbers. Just a few hours per article, when multiplied by twenty-four articles, easily multiplies up to days or even weeks of effort.
To get a more accurate estimate of how long the different kinds of content are going to take, you need to break down the content production work into its constituent stages, starting with planning, moving on through the main work of creation, to reviewing, approvals and finally publishing. You need to think about who needs to be involved at each step, and how much time they’ll need to do their bit.
Taken together, these things make up your content workflow. The workflow will be different for each organisation, but might look something like this:
Eddie the web editor will work out the key messages and objectives for each page, and agree them with Mo the marketing director.
Eddie will then get Cal, the copywriter, to write the first draft.
As part of that, Cal will interview Sam the subject expert to understand the intricacies of the subject and get all the facts straight.
Once Cal’s done the first draft, it’ll go to Sam to check for accuracy, while Eddie reviews it for style and message.
Once Cal has incorporated their feedback it’s time to get Mo to have a look at the final draft.
If Mo’s happy, it’ll get a final proofread, be uploaded to the CMS, and Mo will give the final sign-off and release it for publishing.
You can plot this on a table, with the stages of the content production process down the side, and the key roles or personnel along with top. Then the team can estimate how much time they think each of them needs at each stage.
Mo (marketing director)
Sam (subject expert)
Eddie (web editor)
Cal (copywriter)
Outline: define key messages and objectives
30 min
Review outline
15 min
First draft
30 min
3 hours
Review 1st draft
30 min
30 min
2nd draft
1 hour
Review 2nd draft
15 min
15 min
15 min
Final amendments
30 min
Proofread
15 min
Upload
15 min
Sign-off
10 min
TOTAL
40 min
1 hour 15 min
1 hour 30 min
4 hours 45 min
You can then bring out your calculator again, and come up with some more big scary numbers showing how much time it’s going to take for the whole team to get all the content needed not just written, but also planned, reviewed, approved and published.
With an experienced team you can run this exercise as a group workshop and get some fairly accurate estimates pretty quickly. If this is all a bit new to you, check out Gather Content’s Content Production Planning for Agencies ebook for a useful guide to common content roles, ballpark estimates for how much time each one needs on a typical piece of content, and how to run a process and estimating workshop to dig into them in more detail.
On a small team, one person might play many roles, but you should still sanity-check your estimates by breaking down the process and putting a rough estimate on each stage. With only a couple of people involved, it’s even easier to only include the core activity like writing or recording in your estimates, and forget to allow time for the planning, reviewing, proofreading, publishing and promoting you’ll still need to do. And even in a team of one, if at all possible you should find at least one other person to act as a second pair of eyes, and give anything you produce a quick once-over and proofread before it’s published.
Depending on the kind of content you’re making, you should also consider what will happen after it’s published. The full content life cycle should include promotion, monitoring and regular reviews to make sure content stays accurate and up to date. Making sure you have the time and resources available to do all those things for each piece of content is essential for creating a sustainable content programme.
The proof of the pudding
Even after digging into workflow and getting the whole team involved in estimating, you’re still largely in the realm of the guesstimate. The good news, though, is that you can quite quickly start finding out if your guesstimates are right or not. As soon as you can, pilot the production process with some real content. This is a double-win: you start finding out how long it really takes to produce all this fab new content, and you get real content to work with in designs and prototypes.
Once you’ve run a few things through your process, you’ll be able to refine your estimates, confirm your workflow, and give everyone involved a clear idea of when it will all be ready, and what you need from them.
Keeping it all on track
At this point I like to pull everything together into the content strategist’s favourite tool: the spreadsheet.
A simple content production checklist is a bit like a content inventory or audit, but for the content you don’t yet have, not the stuff already done. You can grab an example here.
Each piece of content gets its own row, with columns for basic information like page title, ID (which should match the site map), and who’s responsible for making it. You can capture simple details like target audience and key messages here too, though for more complex content, page description tables like those described by Relly Annett-Baker in “Extracting the Content” may be a better tool to use. Just adapt these columns to whatever makes sense for your content.
I then have columns to track where each piece is in the production process. I usually keep this simple, with a column each to mark whether it’s draft, final or uploaded. The status column on the left automatically shows the item’s status, using a simple traffic light colour scheme for whether the item is still to do (red), in draft (amber), or done (green). Seeing the whole thing slowly turn from red to green is a nice motivator.
If you want to track the workflow in more detail, a kanban board in a tool like Trello is a great way for a team to collaborate on content production, track each item’s progress, and keep an eye out for bottlenecks and delays.
Getting to the content strategy conversation
It’s a relatively simple exercise, then, to decide not just what kinds of pages you need, but also how many of them: put some rough estimates of effort on the tasks needed to create those pages – not just the writing, but all the other stages of planning, reviewing, approving, publishing and promoting – and then multiply all those things together. This will quickly bring some reality to grand visions and overambitious plans. Do it early enough, and even when the final big scary number is a lot bigger and scarier than everyone thought, you’ll still have time to do something about it.
As well as getting everyone on board for some proper content planning activities, that big scary number is your opportunity to get to the real core questions of content strategy: do we really need all this content? Where can existing content be reused and repurposed? How do we prioritise our efforts? What really matters to our readers and users?
Time and again, case studies show that less content delivers more: more leads, more sales, more self-service support and savings in the call centre. Although that argument is primarily one you should make from a good-for-the-users perspective, it doesn’t hurt to be able to make it from the cheaper-for-the-business perspective as well, and to have some big scary numbers to back that up.",2014,Sophie Dennis,sophiedennis,2014-12-17T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2014/content-production-planning/,content
42,An Overview of SVG Sprite Creation Techniques,"SVG can be used as an icon system to replace icon fonts. The reasons why SVG makes for a superior icon system are numerous, but we won’t be going over them in this article. If you don’t use SVG icons and are interested in knowing why you may want to use them, I recommend you check out “Inline SVG vs Icon Fonts” by Chris Coyier – it covers the most important aspects of both systems and compares them with each other to help you make a better decision about which system to choose.
Once you’ve made the decision to use SVG instead of icon fonts, you’ll need to think of the best way to optimise the delivery of your icons, and ways to make the creation and use of icons faster.
Just like bitmaps, we can create image sprites with SVG – they don’t look or work exactly alike, but the basic concept is pretty much the same.
There are several ways to create SVG sprites, and this article will give you an overview of three of them. While we’re at it, we’re going to take a look at some of the available tools used to automate sprite creation and fallback for us.
Prerequisites
The content of this article assumes you are familiar with SVG. If you’ve never worked with SVG before, you may want to look at some of the introductory tutorials covering SVG syntax, structure and embedding techniques. I recommend the following:
SVG basics: Using SVG.
Structure: Structuring, Grouping, and Referencing in SVG — The ,