{"rowid": 24, "title": "Kill It With Fire! What To Do With Those Dreaded FAQs", "contents": "In the mid-1640s, a man named Matthew Hopkins attempted to rid England of the devil\u2019s influence, primarily by demanding payment for the service of tying women to chairs and tossing them into lakes.\n\nUnsurprisingly, his methods garnered criticism. Hopkins defended himself\u00a0in The Discovery of Witches\u00a0in 1647, subtitled \u201cCertaine Queries answered, which have been and are likely to be objected against MATTHEW HOPKINS, in his way of finding out Witches.\u201d\n\nEach \u201cquerie\u201d was written in the voice of an imagined detractor, and answered in the voice of an imagined defender (always referring to himself as \u201cthe discoverer,\u201d or \u201chim\u201d):\n\n\n\tQuer. 14.\n\n\tAll that the witch-finder doth is to fleece the country of their money, and therefore rides and goes to townes to have imployment, and promiseth them faire promises, and it may be doth nothing for it, and possesseth many men that they have so many wizzards and so many witches in their towne, and so hartens them on to entertaine him.\n\n\tAns.\n\n\tYou doe him a great deale of wrong in every of these particulars.\n\n\nHopkins\u2019 self-defense was an early modern English FAQ.\n\nDigital beginnings\n\nQuestion and answer formatting certainly isn\u2019t new, and stretches back much further than witch-hunt days. But its most modern, most notorious, most reviled incarnation is the internet\u2019s frequently asked questions page.\n\nFAQs began showing up on pre-internet mailing lists\u00a0as a way for list members to answer and pre-empt newcomers\u2019 repetitive questions:\n\n\n\tThe presumption was that new users would download archived past messages through ftp. In practice, this rarely happened and the users tended to post questions to the mailing list instead of searching its archives. Repeating the \u201cright\u201d answers becomes tedious\u2026\n\n\nWhen all the users of a system can hear all the other users, FAQs make a lot of sense: the conversation needs to be managed and manageable. FAQs were a stopgap for the technological limitations of the time.\n\nBut the internet moved past mailing lists. Online information can be stored, searched, filtered, and muted; we choose and control our conversations. New users no longer rely on the established community to answer their questions for them.\n\nAnd yet, FAQs are still around. They\u2019re a content anti-pattern, replicated from site to site to solve a problem we no longer have.\n\nWhat we hate when we hate FAQs\n\nAs someone who creates and structures online content \u2013 always with the goal of making that content as useful as possible to people \u2013 FAQs drive me absolutely batty. Almost universally, FAQs represent the opposite of useful. A brief list of their sins:\n\n\nDouble trouble\nDuplicated content is practically a given with FAQs. They\u2019re written as though they\u2019ll be accessed in a vacuum \u2013 but search results, navigation patterns, and curiosity ensure that users will seek answers throughout the site. Is our goal to split their focus? To make them uncertain of where to look? To divert them to an isolated microcosm of the website? Duplicated content means user confusion (to say nothing of the duplicated workload for maintaining content).\nLeaving the job unfinished\nMany FAQs fail before they\u2019re even out of the gate, presenting a list of questions that\u2019s incomplete (too short and careless to be helpful) or irrelevant (avoiding users\u2019 real concerns in favor of soundbites). Alternately, if the right questions are there, the answers may be convoluted, jargon-heavy, or otherwise difficult to understand.\nLong lists of not-my-question\nGetting a single answer often means sifting through a haystack of questions. For each potential question, the user must read, comprehend, assess, move on, rinse, repeat. That\u2019s a lot of legwork for little reward \u2013 and a lot of opportunity for mistakes. Users may miss their question, or they may fail to recognize a differently worded version of their question, or they may not notice when their sought-after answer appears somewhere they didn\u2019t expect.\nThe ventriloquist act\nFAQs shift the point of view. While websites speak on behalf of the organization (\u201cour products,\u201d \u201cour services,\u201d \u201cyou can call us for assistance,\u201d etc.), FAQs speak as the user \u2013 \u201cI can\u2019t find my password\u201d or \u201cHow do I sign up?\u201d Both voices are written from the first-person perspective, but speak for different entities, which is disorienting: it breaks the tone and messaging across the website. It\u2019s also presumptuous: why do you get to speak for the user?\n\n\nThese all underscore FAQs\u2019 fatal flaw: they are content without context, delivered without regard for the larger experience of the website. You can hear the absurdity in the name itself: if users are asking the same questions so frequently, then there is an obvious gulf between their needs and the site content. (And if not, then we have a labeling problem.)\n\nInstead of sending users to a jumble of maybe-it\u2019s-here-maybe-it\u2019s-not questions, the answers to FAQs should be found naturally throughout a website. They are not separated, not isolated, not other. They are\u00a0the content.\n\nTo present it otherwise is to create a runaround, and users know it. Jay Martel\u2019s parody, \u201cF.A.Q.s about F.A.Q.s\u201d\u00a0captures the silliness and frustration of such a system:\n\n\n\tQ: Why are you so rude?\n\n\tA: For that answer, you would have to consult an F.A.Q.s about F.A.Q.s about F.A.Q.s. But your time might be better served by simply abandoning your search for a magic answer and taking responsibility for your own profound ignorance.\n\n\nFAQs aren\u2019t magic answers. They don\u2019t resolve a content dilemma or even help users. Yet they keep cropping up, defiant, weedy, impossible to eradicate.\n\nWhere are they all coming from?\n\nBlame it on this: writing is hard. When generating content, most of us do whatever it takes to get some words on the screen. And the format of question and answer makes it easy: a reactionary first stab at content development.\n\nAfter all, the point of website content is to answer users\u2019 questions. So this \u2013 to give everyone credit \u2013 is a really good move. Content creators who think in terms of questions and answers are actually thinking of their users, particularly first-time users, trying to anticipate their needs and write towards them.\n\nIt\u2019s a good start. But it\u2019s scaffolding: writing that helps you get to the writing you\u2019re supposed to be doing. It supports you while you write your way to the heart of your content. And once you get there, you have to look back and take the scaffolding down.\n\nLeaving content in the Q&A format that helped you develop it is missing the point. You\u2019re not there to build scaffolding. You have to see your content in its naked purpose and determine the best method for communicating that purpose \u2013 and it usually won\u2019t be what got you there.\n\nThe goal (to borrow a lesson from content management systems) is to separate the content from its presentation, to let the meaning of the content inform its display.\n\nThis is, of course, a nice theory.\n\nAn occasionally necessary evil\n\nI have a lot of clients who adore FAQs. They\u2019ve developed their content over a long period of time. They\u2019ve listened to the questions their users are asking. And they\u2019ve answered them all on a page that I simply cannot get them to part with.\n\nWhich means I\u2019ve had to consider that there may be occasions where an FAQ page is appropriate.\n\nAs an example: one of my clients is a financial office in a large institution. Because this office manages several third-party systems that serve a range of niche audiences, they had developed FAQs that addressed hyper-specific instances of dysfunction within systems for different users \u2013 \u00e0 la \u201cI\u2019m a financial director and my employee submitted an expense report in such-and-such system and it returned such-and-such error. What do I do?\u201d\n\nYes, this content could be removed from the question format and rewritten. But I\u2019m not sure it would be an improvement. It won\u2019t necessarily resolve concerns about length and searchability, and the different audiences may complicate the delivery. And since the work of rewriting it didn\u2019t fit into the client workflow (small team, no writers, pressed for time), I didn\u2019t recommend the change.\n\nI\u2019ve had to make peace with not being to torch all the FAQs on the internet. Some content, like troubleshooting information or complex procedures, may be better in that format. It may be the smartest way for a particular client to handle that particular information.\n\nOf course, this has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the amount of content, the subject matter, the skill levels of the content creators, the publishing workflow, and the search habits of the users.\n\nIf you determine that an FAQ page is the only way to go, ask yourself:\n\n\n\tIs there a better label or more specific term for the page (support, troubleshooting, product concerns, etc.)?\n\tIs there way to structure the page, categorize the questions, or otherwise make it easier for users to navigate quickly to the answer they need?\n\tIs a question and answer format absolutely the best way to communicate this information?\n\n\nForm follows function\n\nJust as a question and answer format isn\u2019t necessarily required to deliver the content, neither is it an inappropriate method in and of itself. Content professionals have developed a knee-jerk reaction:\u00a0It\u2019s an FAQ page! Quick, burn it! Buuuuurn it!\n\nBut there\u2019s no inherent evil in questions and answers. Framing content in an interrogatory construct is no more a deal with the devil than subheads and paragraphs, or narrative arcs, or bullet points.\n\nYes, FAQs are riddled with communication snafus. They deserve, more often than not, to be tied to a chair and thrown into a lake. But that wouldn\u2019t fix our content problems. FAQs are a shiny and obvious target for our frustration, but they\u2019re not unique in their flaws. In any format, in any display, in any kind of page, weak content can rear its ugly, poorly written head.\n\nIt\u2019s not the Q&A that\u2019s to blame, it\u2019s bad content. Content without context will always fail users. That\u2019s the real witch in our midst.", "year": "2013", "author": "Lisa Maria Martin", "author_slug": "lisamariamartin", "published": "2013-12-08T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2013/what-to-do-with-faqs/", "topic": "content"}
{"rowid": 251, "title": "The System, the Search, and the Food Bank", "contents": "Imagine a warehouse, half the length of a football field, with a looped conveyer belt down the center. \nOn the belt are plastic bins filled with assortments of shelf-stable food\u2014one may have two bags of potato chips, seventeen pudding cups, and a box of tissues; the next, a dozen cans of beets. The conveyer belt is ringed with large, empty cardboard boxes, each labeled with categories like \u201cBottled Water\u201d or \u201cCereal\u201d or \u201cCandy.\u201d \nSuch was the scene at my local food bank a few Saturdays ago, when some friends and I volunteered for a shift sorting donated food items. Our job was to fill the labeled cardboard boxes with the correct items nabbed from the swiftly moving, randomly stocked plastic bins.\nI could scarcely believe my good fortune of assignments. You want me to sort things? Into categories? For several hours? And you say there\u2019s an element of time pressure? Listen, is there some sort of permanent position I could be conscripted into.\nLook, I can\u2019t quite explain it: I just know that I love sorting, organizing, and classifying things\u2014groceries at a food bank, but also my bookshelves, my kitchen cabinets, my craft supplies, my dishwasher arrangement, yes I am a delight to live with, why do you ask?\nThe opportunity to create meaning from nothing is at the core of my excitement, which is why I\u2019ve tried to build a career out of organizing digital content, and why I brought a frankly frightening level of enthusiasm to the food bank. \u201cI can\u2019t believe they\u2019re letting me do this,\u201d I whispered in awe to my conveyer belt neighbor as I snapped up a bag of popcorn for the Snacks box with the kind of ferocity usually associated with birds of prey.\nThe jumble of donated items coming into the center need to be sorted in order for the food bank to be able to quantify, package, and distribute the food to those who need it (I sense a metaphor coming on). It\u2019s not just a nice-to-have that we spent our morning separating cookies from carrots\u2014it\u2019s a crucial step in the process. Organization makes the difference between chaos and sense, between randomness and usefulness, whether we\u2019re talking about donated groceries or\u2014there it is\u2014web content.\nThis happens through the magic of criteria matching. In order for us to sort the food bank donations correctly, we needed to know not only the categories we were sorting into, but also the criteria for each category. Does canned ravioli count as Canned Soup? Does enchilada sauce count as Tomatoes? Do protein bars count as Snacks? (Answers: yes, yes, and only if they are under 10 grams of protein or will expire within three months.) \nIs X a Y? was the question at the heart of our food sorting\u2014but it\u2019s also at the heart of any information-seeking behavior. When we are organizing, or looking for, any kind of information, we are asking ourselves:\n\nWhat is the criteria that defines Y?\nDoes X meet that criteria?\n\nWe don\u2019t usually articulate it so concretely because it\u2019s a background process, only leaping to consciousness when we encounter a stumbling block. If cans of broth flew by on the conveyer belt, it didn\u2019t require much thought to place them in the Canned Soup box. Boxed broth, on the other hand, wasn\u2019t allowed, causing a small cognitive hiccup\u2014this X is NOT a Y\u2014that sometimes meant having to re-sort our boxes.\nOn the web, we\u2019re interested\u2014I would hope\u2014in reducing cognitive hiccups for our users. We are interested in making our apps easy to use, our websites easy to navigate, our information easy to access. After all, most of the time, the process of using the internet is one of uniting a question with an answer\u2014Is this article from a trustworthy source? Is this clothing the style I want? Is this company paying their workers a living wage? Is this website one that can answer my question? Is X a Y?\nWe have a responsibility, therefore, to make information easy for our users to find, understand, and act on. This means\u2014well, this means a lot of things, and I\u2019ve got limited space here, so let\u2019s focus on these three lessons from the food bank:\n\n\nUse plain, familiar language. This advice seems to be given constantly, but that\u2019s because it\u2019s solid and it\u2019s not followed enough. Your menu labels, page names, and headings need to reflect the word choice of your users. Think how much harder it would have been to sort food if the boxes were labeled according to nutritional content, grocery store aisle number, or Latin name. How much would it slow sorting down if the Tomatoes box were labeled Nightshades? It sounds silly, but it\u2019s not that different from sites that use industry jargon, company lingo, acronyms (oh, yes, I\u2019ve seen it), or other internally focused language when trying to provide wayfinding for users. Choose words that your audience knows\u2014not only will they be more likely to spot what they\u2019re looking for on your site or app, but you\u2019ll turn up more often in search results.\n\n\nCreate consistency in all things. Missteps in consistency look like my earlier chicken broth example\u2014changing up how something looks, sounds, or functions creates a moment of cognitive dissonance, and those moments add up. The names of products, the names of brands, the names of files and forms and pages, the names of processes and procedures and concepts\u2014these all need to be consistently spelled, punctuated, linked, and referenced, no matter what section or level the user is in. If submenus are visible in one section, they should be visible in all. If calls-to-action are a graphic button in one section, they are the same graphic button in all. Every affordance, every module, every design choice sets up user expectations; consistency keeps those expectations afloat, making for a smoother experience overall.\n\nMake the system transparent. By this, I do not mean that every piece of content should be elevated at all times. The horror. But I do mean that we should make an effort to communicate the boundaries of the digital space from any given corner within. Navigation structures operate just as much as a table of contents as they do a method of moving from one place to another. Page hierarchies help explain content relationships, communicating conceptual relevancy and relative importance. Submenus illustrate which related concepts may be found within a given site section. Take care to show information that conveys the depth and breadth of the system, rather than obscuring it.\n\nThis idea of transparency was perhaps the biggest challenge we experienced in food sorting. Imagine us volunteers as users, each looking for a specific piece of information in the larger system. Like any new visitor to a website, we came into the system not knowing the full picture. We didn\u2019t know every category label around the conveyer belt, nor what criteria each category warranted. \nThe system wasn\u2019t transparent for us, so we had to make it transparent as we went. We had to stop what we were doing and ask questions. We\u2019d ask staff members. We\u2019d ask more seasoned volunteers. We\u2019d ask each other. We\u2019d make guesses, and guess wrongly, and mess up the boxes, and correct our mistakes, and learn.\nThe more we learned, the easier the sorting became. That is, we were able to sort more quickly, more efficiently, more accurately.  The better we understood the system, the better we were at interacting with it.\nThe same is true of our users: the better they understand digital spaces, the more effective they are at using them. But visitors to our apps and websites do not have the luxury of learning the whole system. The fumbling trial-and-error method that I used at the food bank can, on a website, drive users away\u2014or, worse, misinform or hurt them. \nThis is why we must make choices that prioritize transparency, consistency, and familiarity. Our users want to know if X is a Y\u2014well-sorted content can give them the answer.", "year": "2018", "author": "Lisa Maria Martin", "author_slug": "lisamariamartin", "published": "2018-12-16T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2018/the-system-the-search-and-the-food-bank/", "topic": "content"}
{"rowid": 291, "title": "Information Literacy Is a Design Problem", "contents": "Information literacy, wrote Dr. Carol Kulthau in her 1987 paper \u201cInformation Skills for an Information Society,\u201d is \u201cthe ability to read and to use information essential for everyday life\u201d\u2014that is, to effectively navigate a world built on \u201ccomplex masses of information generated by computers and mass media.\u201d\nNearly thirty years later, those \u201ccomplex masses of information\u201d have only grown wilder, thornier, and more constant. We call the internet a firehose, yet we\u2019re loathe to turn it off (or even down). The amount of information we consume daily is staggering\u2014and yet our ability to fully understand it all remains frustratingly insufficient. \nThis should hit a very particular chord for those of us working on the web. We may be developers, designers, or strategists\u2014we may not always be responsible for the words themselves\u2014but we all know that communication is much more than just words. From fonts to form fields, every design decision that we make changes the way information is perceived\u2014for better or for worse.\nWhat\u2019s more, the design decisions that we make feed into larger patterns. They don\u2019t just affect the perception of a single piece of information on a single site; they start to shape reader expectations of information anywhere. Users develop cumulative mental models of how websites should be: where to find a search bar, where to look at contact information, how to filter a product list. \nAnd yet: our models fail us. Fundamentally, we\u2019re not good at parsing information, and that\u2019s troubling. Our experience of an \u201cinformation society\u201d may have evolved, but the skills Dr. Kuhlthau spoke of are even more critical now: our lives depend on information literacy.\nPatterns from words\nLet\u2019s start at the beginning: with the words. Our choice of words can drastically alter a message, from its emotional resonance to its context to its literal meaning. Sometimes we can use word choice for good, to reinvigorate old, forgotten, or unfairly besmirched ideas.\nOne time at a wedding bbq we labeled the coleslaw BRASSICA MIXTA so people wouldn\u2019t skip it based on false hatred.\u2014 Eileen Webb (@webmeadow) November 27, 2016\n\nWe can also use clever word choice to build euphemisms, to name sensitive or intimate concepts without conjuring their full details. This trick gifts us with language like \u201cthe beast with two backs\u201d (thanks, Shakespeare!) and \u201csurfing the crimson wave\u201d (thanks, Cher Horowitz!).\nBut when we grapple with more serious concepts\u2014war, death, human rights\u2014this habit of declawing our language gets dangerous. Using more discrete wording serves to nullify the concepts themselves, euphemizing them out of sight and out of mind.\nThe result? Politicians never lie, they just \u201cmisspeak.\u201d Nobody\u2019s racist, but plenty of people are \u201ceconomically anxious.\u201d Nazis have rebranded as \u201calt-right.\u201d \nI\u2019m not an asshole, I\u2019m just alt-nice.\u2014 Andi Zeisler (@andizeisler) November 22, 2016\n\nThe problem with euphemisms like these is that they quickly infect everyday language. We use the words we hear around us. The more often we see \u201calt-right\u201d instead of \u201cNazi,\u201d the more likely we are to use that phrase ourselves\u2014normalizing the term as well as the terrible ideas behind it.\nPatterns from sentences\nThat process of normalization gets a boost from the media, our main vector of information about the world outside ourselves. Headlines control how we interpret the news that follows\u2014even if the story contradicts it in the end. We hear the framing more clearly than the content itself, coloring our interpretation of the news over time.\nEven worse, headlines are often written to encourage clicks, not to convey critical information. When headline-writing is driven by sensationalism, it\u2019s much, much easier to build a pattern of misinformation. Take this CBS News headline: \u201cDonald Trump: \u2018Millions\u2019 voted illegally for Hillary Clinton.\u201d The headline makes no indication that this an objectively false statement; instead, this word choice subtly suggestions that millions did, in fact, illegally vote for Hillary Clinton.\nHeadlines like this are what make lying a worthwhile political strategy. https://t.co/DRjGeYVKmW\u2014 Binyamin Appelbaum (@BCAppelbaum) November 27, 2016\n\nThis is a deeply dangerous choice of words when headlines are the primary way that news is conveyed\u2014especially on social media, where it\u2019s much faster to share than to actually read the article. In fact, according to a study from the Media Insight Project, \u201croughly six in 10 people acknowledge that they have done nothing more than read news headlines in the past week.\u201d \nIf a powerful person asserts X there are 2 responsible ways to cover:1. \u201cX is true\u201d2. \u201cPerson incorrectly thinks X\u201dNever \u201cPerson says X\u201d\u2014 Helen Rosner (@hels) November 27, 2016\n\nEven if we do, in fact, read the whole article, there\u2019s no guarantee that we\u2019re thinking critically about it. A study conducted by Stanford found that \u201c82 percent of students could not distinguish between a sponsored post and an actual news article on the same website. Nearly 70 percent of middle schoolers thought they had no reason to distrust a sponsored finance article written by the CEO of a bank, and many students evaluate the trustworthiness of tweets based on their level of detail and the size of attached photos.\u201d \nFriends: our information literacy is not very good. Luckily, we\u2014workers of the web\u2014are in a position to improve it.\nSentences into design\nConsider the presentation of those all-important headlines in social media cards, as on Facebook. The display is a combination of both the card\u2019s design and the article\u2019s source code, and looks something like this:\n\nA large image, a large headline; perhaps a brief description; and, at the bottom, in pale gray, a source and an author\u2019s name. \nThose choices convey certain values: specifically, they suggest that the headline and the picture are the entire point. The source is so deemphasized that it\u2019s easy to see how fake news gains a foothold: daily exposure to this kind of hierarchy has taught us that sources aren\u2019t important. \nAnd that\u2019s the message from the best-case scenario. Not every article shows every piece of data. Take this headline from the BBC: \u201cWisconsin receives request for vote recount.\u201d \n\nWith no image, no description, and no author, there\u2019s little opportunity to signal trust or provide nuance. There\u2019s also no date\u2014ever\u2014which presents potentially misleading complications, especially in the context of \u201cbreaking news.\u201d \nAnd lest you think dates don\u2019t matter in the light-speed era of social media, take the headline, \u201cMaryland sidesteps electoral college.\u201d Shared into my feed two days after the US presidential election, that\u2019s some serious news with major historical implications. But since there\u2019s no date on this card, there\u2019s no way for readers to know that the \u201cTuesday\u201d it refers to was in 2007. Again, a design choice has made misinformation far too contagious.\n\nMore recently, I posted my personal reaction to the death of Fidel Castro via a series of twenty tweets. Wanting to share my thoughts with friends and family who don\u2019t use Twitter, I then posted the first tweet to Facebook. The card it generated was less than ideal:\n\nThe information hierarchy created by this approach prioritizes the name of the Twitter user (not even the handle), along with the avatar. Not only does that create an awkward \u201cheadline\u201d (at least when you include a full stop in your name), but it also minimizes the content of the tweet itself\u2014which was the whole point. \nThe arbitrary elevation of some pieces of content over others\u2014like huge headlines juxtaposed with minimized sources\u2014teaches readers that these values are inherent to the content itself: that the headline is the news, that the source is irrelevant. We train readers to stop looking for the information we don\u2019t put in front of them. \nThese aren\u2019t life-or-death scenarios; they are just cases where design decisions noticeably dictate the perception of information. Not every design decision makes so obvious an impact, but the impact is there. Every single action adds to the pattern.\nDesign with intention\nWe can\u2019t necessarily teach people to read critically or vet their sources or stop believing conspiracy theories (or start believing facts). Our reach is limited to our roles: we make websites and products for companies and colleges and startups.\nBut we have more reach there than we might realize. Every decision we make influences how information is presented in the world. Every presentation adds to the pattern. No matter how innocuous our organization, how lowly our title, how small our user base\u2014every single one of us contributes, a little bit, to the way information is perceived.\nAre we changing it for the better?\nWhile it\u2019s always been crucial to act ethically in the building of the web, our cultural climate now requires dedicated, individual conscientiousness. It\u2019s not enough to think ourselves neutral, to dismiss our work as meaningless or apolitical. Everything is political. Every action, and every inaction, has an impact.\nAs Chappell Ellison put it much more eloquently than I can:\nEvery single action and decision a designer commits is a political act. The question is, are you a conscious actor?\u2014 Chappell Ellison\ud83e\udd14 (@ChappellTracker) November 28, 2016\n\nAs shapers of information, we have a responsibility: to create clarity, to further understanding, to advance truth. Every single one of us must choose to treat information\u2014and the society it builds\u2014with integrity.", "year": "2016", "author": "Lisa Maria Martin", "author_slug": "lisamariamartin", "published": "2016-12-14T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2016/information-literacy-is-a-design-problem/", "topic": "content"}