Mental Modeling For Content Work: Creation

Before I sold my soul to the advertising industry, I was in journalism. As a cub reporter, I covered crime, courts and emergencies.

The first year of the beat, I wasted a lot of time trying to “perfect” my craft through technical means. I poured over award winning coverage and studied syntax, style and structure. I shortened my ledes, broadened my vocabulary and incorporated new adjectives. It didn’t help.

Make no mistake, I was a strong reporter (often thanks to some excellent editors), but it wasn’t until I physically moved to my coverage area and began embedding myself among my subject matter that I began to produce work that resonated with anyone.

I stopped calling sources, instead meeting them for coffee. Whenever possible, I rode along with police officers, embedded myself with SWAT teams and did my best to “experience” stories. I arranged to be put in county lockup to understand what an average inmate’s day was like and I trained as a firefighter for several days. Over time, I began understanding the motivators, behaviors and pain points that my subjects experienced. My stories were better, not because I had better relationships with my sources, but because as I immersed myself in my subject matter. The details that I discovered by being part of the culture helped my writing become more clear.

And so it is for mental modeling for content work. The details – extracted from careful interviews, shared experiences and observations – will ultimately bring clarity to content planning and strategy to populate our systems.

Building Content Focused Mental Models

In her book, Indi Young discusses work that falls into the content strategy process in chapter 12. For Indi, content strategy fits in mental modeling as a parallel path or after the process has been completed. She describes this process as “Content Mapping:”

The content map includes all functionality that already exists and is planned for your solution. Let me assure you that the name “content” does not limit your map to text documents. While it may have started out as a description of an inventory of a news web site or something, it means much more than that these days. Your content map should include all the ways you serve people, including things like monthly account statements or yearly awards banquets, registration for training courses, or a mortgage calculator. Anything that has to do with your relationship with those you serve should be included in your content map.

For Young, the “content map” structure makes little difference to the mental model. The important thing is that the boxes will fit underneath the towers that will ultimately be a part of the solution. My approach differs a bit from Young’s in that I find it much more beneficial to the user experience team if I build the “content map” in the form of a mental model as opposed to the traditional content inventory or visual map that she highlights in her book.

And because I usually have a UX partner that I spend the majority of my project with, I make sure they’re an active participant in the mapping of content to the models.

Bases, Support Structures, Towers and Roots

Before we begin the mental modeling process, we need to go back to the engagement maps we discussed in information gathering. The key engagements we highlight for personas will form the “bases” for “support structures” and “towers,” when we begin plotting our mental models.

A quick check of our engagement map reveals four key patterns for the “Returning Student” persona. They include: “Explore Options,” “Plan and Immerse,” “Overcome Fear,” and “Take Action.” Each pattern (engagement) is used as a “base,” which serves as the foundation to which we’ll start to build out a case for content to address user needs (“towers”).

But before I build towers, I add “support structure” to the base via “intentions.” Intentions provide context to how content should be framed for task completion. I have most often found that intentions either come up in interviews and could be considered a secondary pattern, or could be implied from verbatims that are consistent with one another. They aren’t necessary to a mental model for content work, but I find that they strengthen the strategy and are valuable to content creators.

Once we have bases and intentions we can begin to build “towers” to establish content that aids in task completion. These boxes should essentially label tasks that the user would want to complete. I leave the labels to these boxes in question form to further assist in content planning for task completion.

Below the line – living underneath the bases – I box out what I refer to as “roots.” For my work, “roots” are the content or features of existing systems that help achieve the engagements we’ve used as bases. This is where all that time you spent content auditing saves it in the long run.

Here’s how these elements work together.

What you see above is more or less a piece of a much larger model. These towers, bases and roots could go on for pages and pages depending on the complexity of the section of our system. I mapped this out using OmniGraffle, but before I begin building my artifacts in digital form, I perform modeling exercises that require a war room, transcripts from information gathering, a lot of butcher paper and reams and reams of sticky notes.

Depending on the size of the organization and stakeholder involvement, this might be a small group activity (read as: strategist and user experience team) or quite cumbersome (read as: client wants heavy involvement from numerous stakeholders).

The actual creation occurs in these meetings. Just as we would for a mental model for system design, we must interview our assumed users, look for patterns and organize them into the towers. For content work, I’ve found that most research will produce anywhere from 40 to 150 tasks depending on the scope of the project. The patterns that emerge from the research become important for the planning and production of content as these patterns should give us a better idea of both how a user approaches a problem and what fears, hopes, philosophies, etc. must be addressed. As you can imagine, the process is incredibly time consuming. I find a small group with the authority to make major site decisions is the best way to keep the process moving.

Most of my rooms start looking like the photo above (if not more cluttered) not long after interviews for mental models have wrapped up. And after you’ve butcher papered your office to death, you can start building the digital versions. Here’s a closer look at our returning student persona.

Why It’s Useful For Content Work

Mental models have numerous benefits. The research that goes into a mental model provides a deep understanding of people’s motivations and thought-processes. When they’re done right we should also gain insight to the emotional and philosophical landscape in which users are operating as well.

When we use this understanding for content work, our messages better inform the systems they populate and the users that access them. Once we uncover the roots to a person’s cognition, we have a stronger chance for understanding, learning and comprehension (which happens to be my first principle for content strategy).

But mental models aren’t bullet proof. Depending on your project, producing a mental model that is reliable for a large enough segment of your audience to influence the content strategy might be more difficult. Mental models work best when a user has formed patterns over a longer period of time.

The difficulty with mental modeling for content work is that, by nature, the need for content is normally situational. It then follows that the patterns we see coming out of our research must be strong to depend on them for the actual model and the content that comes from it.

All that said, when a mental model can be produced, it can be extremely useful for planning, maintaining and governing content over time.

There is obviously a lot more to this process than I can get into in a blog post, or a series of blog posts. If you believe mental modeling might be right for your project, I highly encourage that you read Young’s foundational work on the subject: Mental Modeling: Aligning Design Strategy With Human Behavior and find ways to incorporate it into your own content work.

On a related note, I’ll be ranting about this for 20 minutes at Midwest UX 2012 in Columbus this May. I’d encourage you to come out and add to the conversation.

Read: Mental Modeling For Content Work: An Introduction
Read: Mental Modeling For Content Work: Information Gathering

Mental Modeling For Content Work: An Introduction

The average adult human brain contains approximately a hundred billion neurons used to inform and and operate the human machine. With all of that processing power, system support and design repetition it’s sometimes curious as to why the machine is such a fickle thing.

All it takes is a moment for our mood to change. Ideas and complex concepts can form in seconds given the right amount of cognitive capacity. Even something as simple as the way a sentence is structured or the words we choose will impact perceptions or the potential for another’s comprehension. It’s precisely for all of these ambient, behavioral and situational factors factors that content strategists should be better leveraging mental mapping and modeling for the planning, design and implementation of content.

Mental Modeling is far from a new thing. In fact, thinkers from the UX design community have been advocating its use for years (e.g: Indi Young’s Mental Models: Aligning Design Strategy With Human Behaviors), because it helps in understanding users’ “reasons for doing things.” The ability to leverage this type of strategy is crucial for anyone concerned with content as well, because the content that fills the design is what should create understanding for the audience. It all falls back to task completion (which I was just neatly covering off in my previous post on user satisfaction and perception metrics).

A VERY Brief History Of Mental Models

From everything I’ve been able to find, the term “mental modeling” originated in Scottish philosopher and psychologist Kenneth Craik’s The Nature of Explanation, published in 1943. Possibly one of the first cognitive scientists, Craik postulated that the mind forms models of reality and uses them to predict similar future events.

Fast forward 35-40 years from that book and to an expanded interest in cognitive science (particularly artificial intelligence) and you’ll find a number of parties advocating for the exploration and expansion of mental models.

Phillip Johnson-Laird’s Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Interference and Consciousness (1983) describes mental modeling as: the creation of hypothetical processes humans go through to solve reasoning problems — essentially focusing on the system of the brain and how humans perceive the problems.

Dedre Gentner and Albert Stevens proposed a different way of explaining mental modeling the same year in a series of papers they co-wrote (also titled Mental Models). They defined the practice as the understanding of a human’s view of the world, himself, his capabilities, behaviors and the tasks he’s asked to complete, learn or perform. Additionally, mental models account for how they perceive the effort it takes to complete them.

Jump ahead another 5 years to 1988. Big hair, shoulder pads, cocaine and the personal computers are plentiful and widely accessible. The personal computing revolution gives birth to mental modeling for human computer interaction (HCI) and programming professionals. Don Norman’s book The Design of Everyday Things (originally titled The Psychology of Everyday Things) presents mental modeling as “a set of beliefs about how a system works.” He contended that “humans interact with systems based on these beliefs.”

The 1990s ushered in the explosion of the Internet and had user experience architects, interactive designers, programmers and human computer interaction pros beginning to develop their own brand of mental modeling, which has been debated, modified and (at times) heatedly argued up to present day.

Current views of mental modeling in user experience and interface design seem to hover largely around creating a support structure for making interfaces or web experiences consistent and predictable for a user. A user’s mental model should inform the designers ability to add or modify functionality or features without causing users additional pain points or retraining. I rather like Indi Young’s description for what her mental models are.

“My mental models are diagrams that represent the thought- and action-process used to achieve a set of goals in a narrowly defined scope.”

So, we’re here in 2011, about to bust into 2012. I’m asking you, dear content strategists, to follow the lead of our user experience partners. I’m urging all of us to start considering and implementing mental models for content work. Better yet, partner with them and take on the exercise together. In this task you’ll provide your unique content insights to better inform a complete picture to inspire their functional designs.

Now that we’ve got the past clearly behind us, lets start exploring what is unique about mental modeling for content work.

The Charge For Content Strategists

For content strategy purposes, we should view mental models as a generative research technique, meaning that they should be used as an evaluative measure to frame up the mental environment in which decisions are considered, debated and ultimately decided. Many user experience professionals and agencies also refer to this as “foundational research.” This means that the efforts of our mental modeling labors may not ultimately inform content strategy to achieve business goals, but will help us in the creation of content that a user can empathize with.

Mental models for content professionals will help us to understand and hypothesize concepts about our users’ behaviors (cue personal-behavioral context). We want to know their pain points, motivators, stressors and cognitive capabilities to ultimately understand how they are making a decision online. These foundational elements create the “model,” which will better inform both the designs of our systems and the content that fills them to reach our user in the deepest way possible.

Once those models are created, strategists can cross tab their findings against traditional content strategy deliverables like gap analysis, messaging strategies, etc. to better inform recommendations to content creators. Sample content can then be tested and gut checked with audiences via testing panels, cafe tests or focus groups.

Up Next

The next logical question is how. Will dig into that next week, when we can take a deep dive into what informs successful generative research and what key usability tests or interviews you may already be doing will enable the end result. I hope you’ll stick with me and dive in head first.

Mental Modeling For Content Work: An Introduction, is the first post in a three part series about adapting traditional views of mental modeling for the practice of content strategy.

Content Strategy Gut Checks: First Impressions Testing

Content Strategy Gut Checks: First Impressions Testing is the third in a series of six posts discussing the testing of content and content strategy models in usability and user testing. Did you miss the first two posts?

Read Part One: The Café Test
Read Part Two: The Focus Group

You’ve got butterflies in your stomach. It’s a nervous, happy, scared out of your mind (but deliriously excited all at the same time) rush. You’ve spared no expense in sprucing yourself up and have taken care to be sure everything is enticing to the eye.

No doubt about it, you’re looking hot. But when users start knocking at your virtual door for their first date, will your content be the horrible garlic breath that turns them off or will they find the spark that keeps them coming back for more of what only you can truly offer?

Just as in dating or a job interview, a first impression can be the most lasting, which is why taking the time to test for them is crucial — both for the visuals and the content.

When To Use First Impressions Testing

As far as I know, “First Impressions Testing” isn’t exactly a formal “usability” test. I’ve always used it as a field test that can be combined with, or performed separately from, the Café Test.

They’re best used early in the web design process or when you need to capture first impressions on a new addition to a site. I also find them valuable for form and e-mail testing. The first impressions gathered are analyzed to determine whether initial reactions have colored a user’s feeling about the remainder of the site/email/etc. First impressions testing that is specific to content should be focused on subjective measures, which could include:

• A user’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with page content
• A user’s comfort and understanding of content concepts
• A user’s thoughts and impressions about the tone and understanding of the context of the content within the design
• A user’s self-reported thoughts about the purpose of the site and content

How To Get Started

First impressions testing can be performed in a variety of environments and in a variety of ways. There are a few remote services that provide this type of usability testing (e.g. Optimal Workshop’s ChalkMark). You could also contract a testing lab if you don’t have a lot of strong experts in house, but I’m of the opinion that more often than not you don’t need a formal lab to perform first impressions testing.

Setup for a first impressions test is similar to the café test. You can stage in a high traffic area, like a café (preferably one where your target user might be) to approach potential users or invite a section of existing users to a conference room in your office, etc. You can also do this test remotely through a conferencing application. Just be sure to test users one at a time.

If they’ll allow you to do so, take video or photos. If you’re using a laptop, use the onboard camera to record facial expressions. You don’t need a separate moderator, but it helps to have someone take notes when you reach the question portion of the test.

Your willing participant should be seated facing your device of choice with nothing on the screen and then shown the homepage/page/application/etc. for five to 90 seconds. If I were only testing the design, I’d do five to ten seconds maximum, but since we’re talking content here, give them a bit longer to see what they focus on first.

Once the time is up, hide the site and ask the user to begin relating everything they can recall from the page.

Questions, Questions, Questions

When asking the participant to relate their first impressions, focus your questions on subjective measures. Be sure not to be too leading or to use any language that might influence their answers. You want a true first impression, not something you’ve potentially influenced. Ask them to recall everything they can from their short experience with the testing material. Questions can include but aren’t limited to:

• What was the purpose of the [content] on the site?
• What were the key takeaways of what you read/saw/heard?
• Did you understand the content on the page?
• What were the first things you noticed when the page appeared?
• Can you recall or describe the mood of the site?
• How does your overall impression of this [content] influence your perception of the site/product/etc?

Deliverables

Key deliverables from a first impressions test will be qualitative reports. It’s fine to detail a day’s worth of testing into a single report, but sessions can be broken out by individual if you wish.

If you videotape the session, use clips and captures in your reporting to bring back to designers and content stakeholders. Just make sure you capture all of the thoughts, feelings and end with how those impressions color a user’s opinion of what the experience is as a whole.

Summing It Up

Testing first impressions for the content of the site is tricky because a user may naturally be drawn to site visuals prior to diving into the content. That being said, any qualitative data you gather during first impressions testing should be taken for what it is — a field test.

Use those impressions to be sure you have the right calls to action, the right amount of space allocated for content and the right mix of visuals to put content in the right context based on user expectations. No one wants to be the one with the garlic breath and you don’t want your user’s first impressions to cloud his or her perception of what you have to offer down the road. So test to be sure you can make a first good impression before you toss yourself to the world.

“Disgust” (photo) by Jeremy Brooks. Used via CC BY-NC 2.0 License.

“Testing” (photo) by Rebecca Partington. Used via CC BY-SA 2.0 License

Content Strategy Gut Checks: The Focus Group

Content Strategy Gut Checks: The Focus Group is the second in a series of six posts discussing the testing of content and content strategy models in usability and user testing. Did you miss the first post? Read Part One: Content Strategy Gut Checks: The Café Test.

“The wise man doesn’t give the right answers, he poses the right questions,” — Claude Levi-Strauss

The way I see it, Claude Levi-Strauss’ statement sums up how I view testing, and (in a way) content strategy. The questions we craft and ask of users are crucial for informing the type of data we ultimately use and produce for our digital experiences. And when it comes to posing those questions to gut check our content and content strategy, one of the best tools at our disposal is the focus group.

For starters, I think it’s important to point out that focus groups are NOT usability tests. Focus groups are what I refer to as user tests or user dialogues, which have very different goals from usability testing. A good usability test should focus more on observation and provide us answers with how well a user was able to use and experience both the interface and the data itself. Conversely, if we want to assess users thoughts, feelings or attitudes about a product or our Web site, we’d leverage a focus group.

It’s the difference of what users say vs. what they do — and in the best of all possible worlds, we’ll be able to leverage both insights when planning for content strategy.

When To Use Focus Groups

I personally believe focus groups should be performed early in any web project to both help discover insights into your target audience and prove out any assumptions you might have made regarding their Personal-Behavioral Context or Situational Context (did you really think you’d get through a post on my site without me making a plug for context?).

Also, consider using a focus group if:

How To Get Started

Invite 6 to 12 people to participate in for each focus group session. Depending on your budget or the scope of your project you may need several sessions to get a representative sampling of your targets. Pre-screen to be sure participants are from your target via questionnaire. It is absolutely crucial that the people you invite be from your target demographic. If they aren’t, you’re wasting time and client dollars.

In your invitation to participants, do your best to provide a high-level agenda and include any issues that you’ll be tackling during your session. The focus group itself should last 60 to 90 minutes (any longer and you’d best buy them a meal and plan to bring them back the next day).

Prepare up front. State the purpose of the focus group and provide an outline to the day’s activities. If it’s required of your client (or if you just want to cover all your bases) have them sign a consent form after you’ve given your explanation (e.g.: [PDF]) and bring it to the group. Collect your consent prior to giving them access to other members of the group or the focus group room.

Set up the focus group in an room or location that offers little to no distraction. You want the participants’ full attention since the end results will be analytical reports. Try to set your test group around a table to encourage conversation. You want the group to have the ability to make chatter and if it’s a circular or ovular table, you’ll have a better vantage point to document facial reactions or pose immediate follow up questions.

Before you begin the questioning, ask the participants to introduce themselves and/or wear nametags. Focus groups are a tag team effort (you need a strong moderator and someone to document findings, discretely if possible). It’s the moderator’s job to be aware of the energy in the room. They also need to step in if one person is dominating a conversation and allow for cognitive breaks when it appears they’re needed. The moderator has to keep discussions flowing and keep the group focused on the issues you want to document.

The recorder should only focus on documenting the findings, and he should capture facial expressions, audio, notes on findings etc. I’ve always found it helpful to color code notes per participant or attach a headshot to individual notes when I’m acting as a recorder in a focus group.

Questions, Questions, Questions

A focus group will only be successful if the questions asked are open and neutral. The wording is crucial, so channel your inner Claude Levi-Strauss and be the wise man. Pay special attention to the inflection and tone taken posing a question to the group. The wrong wording or inflection might taint the responses.

Ask the target audience about how they use the web, what their expectations are of what types of content would be on your Web site. If it’s a new section, get their thoughts on how successful their efforts have been in seeking the proposed content. If they have used that type of content, document their experiences. What worked? What didn’t? What would they have preferred to see? It’s here that we start to find the bits that we can apply to situational context and scratch at those oh so elusive behaviors.

Other questions a moderator could pose to a focus group that help influence content strategy include:

There are tons of questions and paths that can be followed, but that would be a MUCH longer post.

Deliverables

Focus groups are for gathering thoughts, feelings or attitudes. That means you need qualitative analysis reports. These should be written for each session. The reports should contain the relevant background of participants who attended individual groups. Dedicate a single report to each session and be sure to have any questions you may have gathered in the screening questionnaire included in your reporting as well.

If you videotape the session, use clips and captures in your reporting to emphasize thoughts and support any hypothesis you had about content, data and design needs.

The more data you have to work with, the easier it will be to make relevant Behavioral/Situational personas to apply to your content strategy project. Client deliverables might include an executive summary, or quotes and images from the session, but the full report should be more useful to your design team and content/digital strategists.

Summing It Up

Focus groups are meant to help predict consumer responses to a site or feature. It’s crucial to know how consumers feel about a project prior to really getting down to the heavier design phase and focus groups are a great forum to getting those feelings out into the open. They require patience and a really solid moderator who can manage conflict and keep the group on the task at hand.

I fully believe great focus groups can be done independent of agencies that specialize in it. An independent content strategist need only be sure he or she has specific plan and goals in mind prior to doing the focus group. If you don’t think you can handle the moderation, find someone internally who can manage conflict or multiple personalities.

Even if you do select an agency to perform your focus group testing, make sure you have influence over the questions asked. A good content strategist should walk away knowing the situations that will call for content and have a better idea of the mix that will be needed to address those situations.

What are your experiences with focus groups? Do you find them useful in planning for content strategies? Drop your thoughts into the comments below.

Marriage Lessons: Content Strategy and Information Architecture

Sometimes, the marriage of content strategy and user experience can be a tricky thing. The relationship forces an individual primarily focused on making a site usable, functional and beautiful to play nice with a strategist, who is focused on what populates that lovely work of code. Often times the two practices seem to be at constant odds with one another, but when content strategy and user experience work with common purpose (to make the Web a more usable place), amazing things can happen.

The secret to a happy and healthy UX/Content Strategy marriage comes not only with shared purpose, but lies within the ability for one to be an advocate for the other’s work. I can say with no reservations that without the guidance of Erika, my partner of the last three years, that my work would have suffered. She makes me appear to be much smarter than I actually am and aside from being a constant advocate for content strategy, you couldn’t ask for a nicer person to have to spend your days with.

So you can imagine how unhappy I am to report that she left me (well, the agency) on Friday.

To say that Erika’s departure is painful is a gross understatement. You see, there’s a special bond (a link if you will) that digital geeks who seriously LOVE building sites share. I believe that we worked so well together because for as long as I’ve known her, Erika has approached Web sites with content in mind.

Erika and I have shared similar paths, as did anyone who began working with code and Web sites in the 90s. At that time, coders had to be cognizant of the content, because there were no other members of a web team. We were the “Webmasters,” “Web Editors” and “Site Masters.” We were the sole owners of the code, the copywriters and the editors of content and the presence we were called upon to create. We had no choice than to be intimately connected to the design and the material that populated it.

It wasn’t until the web started evolving beyond “brochure ware” that we were called to start thinking about content differently for web users. During that time, UX started down a different path and content strategy began to emerge, but for Erika, and many other UX pros, content strategy was already embedded into their DNA and they’re better for it.

Recently, the explosion of focus on content strategy has brought much attention to the space and folks who didn’t have this early experience in design (and even several who did) are starting to get territorial over deliverables and responsibilities. A lot of content strategists and UX pros have started writing about the relationship and exploring it in greater detail. For the most part, I believe the discussions have been positive.

Two strong examples of the positive looks that come to mind include: Kristina Halvorson’s article for UX Mag and my Campbell-Ewald colleague Chris Moritz’s talk on the Overlaps and Underpinnings of CS and UX.

These are great places to start and both remind us that there is room for both the user experience professional and the content strategist to do their work. We just have to remember that we all have a common goal … to make the Web a more useful and usable place.

Consequently, Campbell-Ewald is looking for a top-notch information architect. You’ll get to work alongside people who love the interactive space and are doing some fantastic work in content strategy and interactive design. Check out the job listing and come work with us in the Mitten: Information Architect Job Posting.

Hug your IA today!

Chain Link Photo used via Creative Commons License. Photographer: Matti Mattila