*March 25, 2010: See you in Old Ann Arbor?*

Sorry so little blogging of late. Busy as hell pontificating and such over
at Twitter (both @louisrosenfeld <http://twitter.com/louisrosenfeld> and
@rosenfeldmedia <http://twitter.com/rosenfeldmedia>; I guess I was meant to
communicate in 140 or fewer characters. (I'll admit, it is quite
liberating!) In general, I'm busy as hell, and many things are falling off
the plate.

Tweeting aside, I still do have a day job or three. One is teaching my
full-day workshops. I've got two coming up next week in my old, wonderful
hometown of Ann Arbor, Michigan, sponsored by the Merit
Network<http://www.merit.edu/>.
On Tuesday March 30, I'm bringing back (by popular demand! I've always
wanted to say that) my "Enterprise Information
Architecture<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/eia/>:
Because users don't care about your org chart" seminar. I think I retired it
prematurely; it seems more relevant today than ever. And on Wednesday, March
31, I'll teach my "Site Search
Analytics<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/site_search_analytics\
/>for
a Better User Experience" workshop, with fresh stuff as we inch toward
finishing the book <http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/> on
the same topic. A few spaces are still open for both days; register
here<http://merit.edu/events/archive/specialevents/rosenfeld/>
.

And on Tuesday night, Michigan UPA <http://miupa.org/> is sponsoring a happy
hour in my honor from 7-9 at the Corner Brewery in Ypsilanti. Please
RSVP<http://guestlistapp.com/events/17796>please, if you please.

Many thanks to *Andy Rosenzweig* of Merit and *Dave Mitropolous-Rundus* of
MiUPA for hosting me. I hope to see you somewhere in Washtenaw County next
week.

*
*

*PERMALINK:  *http://is.gd/aZbvp


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*April 14, 2010:  To-do list for next IA Summit  *(permalink:
http://is.gd/bsPIP)


So I'm the guy who raised concerns about the IA Summit's format. (Yes, this
one went to eleven <http://2010.iasummit.org/>!) First: don't take this
screed the wrong way—it was easily one of the best programs we've had yet.
But attendance numbers continue to lag, and I'd rather get in front of what
could become a much bigger problem. I'm very grateful to *Jenn, Abby, Dick,
Vanessa,* and everyone else who made 2010 happen; like them, I just want the
Summit to continue and thrive.

Using the all-powerful Twitter, I pulled together an informal flex track
discussion nicely
summarized<http://redmolly.tumblr.com/post/518378146/save-the-ia-summit-if-it-ne\
eds-saving>by
*Red Molly.* We ranged from format to content to the competition to an oldie
but goodie, the bizarre ASIS&T/IA Summit/IA Institute love/hate triangle
that I'm apparently the only person who understands (which isn't surprising
as I'm probably more to blame than anyone else). About thirty of us went at
it; as Red said, productive but not conclusive.

Here are a few thoughts that I liked. Not sure which are mine and which
aren't; I'll just claim credit for the good ones. ;-)

    - *The committee needs clearer responsibilities and a better
structure.*When you rely on volunteers, and there's little
documentation from
    year-to-year to serve as institutional memory, too much ends up in the hands
    of too few, and balls are going to get dropped (e.g., mention of the flex
    track, design of the program). Here's a way to fix that: *three
    conference chairs*—one for the program, one for operations, and one for
    engagement.
    - *That institutional memory thing.* At least two ways to handle this:
       1. *Each chair gets a lackey, er, co-chair.* Co-chair shadows,
       observes, and (hopefully) helps. The next year, they take over as main
       chairs of their respective areas of responsibility. During each
Summit, the
       co-chairs look for problems to fix and opportunities to address during
       *their* turn. Along those lines, co-chairs should convene a meeting
       like I did to find out what's working and what's not while it's fresh in
       people's minds.
       2. *Convene old farts who've run past conferences.* Especially
*this*conference. There's your institutional memory, you betcha. Some
of these
       folks (including yours truly) are already on the committee, but
again, this
       part of my screed is about clarifying roles and
responsibilities. So use old
       farts for old fart style tasks.
    - *Create an engaging format(s).* This was ostensibly my main concern. It
    does seem to be heading staleward, and there are lots of competitors out
    there. The shiny side of that coin is that there are lots of good models to
    rip off. Here are couple thoughts to consider:
       1. *Single track, a la original IA Summit.* Sure, it's nice to have
       everyone in one place. But (sorry *Peterme*) we've already got IDEA
       for that. Some of the "I can't be in three places at once" pressure *
       could* be relieved by making the event longer, and that's worth
       considering. In fact, I think it was *Jared* that suggested making the
       pre-confs—which earn much if not most of the event's revenue—included as
       part of the deal, and allow people to opt out of them if necessary. (Yes,
       calling them "*pre*-conference" really does make them seem like icing
       when they really could be cake).
       2. *Use case driven program.* There are people who are absolute
       newbies, wanting to learn wireframing (and we should be very
careful not to
       ignore them, as most of the organizers are anything but new to
the field).
       There are managers who want to send their teams (um, could we have team
       pricing then?) There are people who are there to get advanced
skills. There
       are people there to recruit and be recruited. There are people
there to sell
       stuff like (ahem) books. Why not identify the important use cases and
       implied relationships, and build the conference around them? The result
       might be single track, multi track, eight track for all I care.
Could be one
       day, could be forty days. Goddammit, we're information architects, and we
       should be able to structure such content, even if it is
complicated by the
       added dimension of time. This is plainly a solvable design problem.
    - *Engagement is more important than the event.* *Before* and *after* are
    as important as *during.* Before could seen as marketing and promo, but
    it's also concrete stuff like finding a roommate and figuring out what kind
    of topics people might want to hear presented. After is helping people take
    what they've learned—possibly in a physical form—and using it to educate and
    evangelize both the content they've acquired and the event itself. If we
    design for engagement, for the lifecycle of the people actually attending,
    the event becomes a snapshot of a longer, fuller process—perhaps the most
    important snapshot, but by no means not the only one. I suggest taking those
    use cases that I suggested identifying, and asking the basic question that
    never gets asked: "How can we engage with each of these groups?" Then take
    that question further: "How can we engage with them BEFORE the event?
    DURING? And AFTER?" This is why I'm suggesting an engagement chair, and I
    believe that engagement is more important than marketing and promo; the
    latter are almost a byproduct of a strong engagement plan.
    - *IA Summit as an exercise in design.* Need I say more? So let's have
    fun.
    - *ASIS&T WTF:* Define that role. Assuming ASIS&T continues in its
    current role, they should be involved in a way that plays to their strengths
    (e.g., finding a venue, collecting $$). Money is the critical issue, and I'd
    hate for ASIS&T to, for example, screw around with things like what the
    committee should pay for badge creation. ASIS&T should assign a budget, and
    if the chairs want to go over budget, they should as long as they find a
    source to cover the overage (e.g., a sponsor for something specific—like
    badges).
    - *Create financial incentives for chairs.* Base them on such goals as
    achieving a certain threshold of sponsor dollars, or registrations, or
    tweets, or whatever the hell would make sense. Really, it's not fair they
    way it works now. There's got to be a better incentive for chairs and other
    volunteers, especially if the current state requires them to take crap from
    the likes of me.
    - *Ditch Crowdvine. Now.* Start over with community-based functional
    requirements. Then find a new partner if necessary. We all bitch about
    Crowdvine and its shaky definitions of networking relationships. Like I
    said, we're a bunch of information architects, goddamit; let's find or
    create something better.
    - *Cut the crap on having presenters register.* Let's face it, ASIS&T
    ends up rolling this back when individuals complain enough (oops; you didn't
    hear it here). It's a legacy from academia (where ASIS&T originated), where
    institutions paid their faculty's conference costs. Given that about 1% of
    the IA Summit's attendees are academics, I think it's time to kill this one
    dead.

OK, that ought to do...

*PS* I originally sketched this, but the one thing *Dan
Roam<http://www.thebackofthenapkin.com/>
* didn't tell us was to purchase a scanner. So here's my text. Scanner
recommendations gratefully welcomed...


*Permalink:  http://is.gd/bsPIP*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*May 3, 2010:  Design Challenge: get UX books to UX events*

(Bloug permalink:  http://is.gd/bShiu)

Every type of business has a thorn in its side. For the restauranteur, it's
the health inspector. For the playwright, it's the critic. For the farmer,
it's the rancher (or is it the other way around?).

For the publisher, it's the conference bookseller. Granted, there's little
money in it for the bookseller, and that's probably why you've noticed fewer
and fewer of them at the conferences you regularly attend.

But still, I hate'em: they demand a 40% discount from the publisher, sell on
consignment, communicate poorly, and are notoriously slow at paying (if they
pay at all) and at returning unsold books. They know little if anything
about the books, the event, or its attendees. Worse for the publisher, they
work differently enough at each event to totally confound the publisher who
hopes to do things the same way for all events.

Cut out the middleman, then! But how?

Well, that's where you design thinkers come in. Your challenge, should you
accept it, is to design a way to get single copies of, say, a few dozen UX
books from a variety of publishers to a bunch of different UX events. Let
people thumb through the books, then process their orders on the spot. Make
the setup mobile, so the books could go to where the people (and authors)
are, rather than sitting still inside an exhibition hall (this would be
especially important at spread-out events like SXSW). The process should
easily repeatable for each event, and obviously a human would have to be
there to supervise the whole process.

I've been talking informally with other publishers who are similarly
frustrated by the situation. We've come up with an initial stab at what
might work, but I'm sure you'll have much better ideas:

    - *Where are the books displayed?* How about a bookmobile? A portable
    rack, maybe even set up on a little red wagon, could go where it's needed.
    However, there are some logistical challenges to getting the hardware to the
    person handling a particular event. And what sort of hardware? This is
    perhaps the biggest challenge.
    - *How do customers pay?* Could use a cool credit card device that
    attaches to an iPhone like this
one<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/technology/29cashless.html>.
    Or give people a discount code and either have them make the purchase on
    their own device, or supply an iPhone or iPad to handle sales on the spot.
    - *Who handles this?* Could be a couple of volunteers who take turns
    handling the bookmobile in return for free passes to the conference and/or
    the collection of books (which will be too thumbed-over to sell). Or they
    could take a cut of the sales. They have to be trustworthy, as we'd be
    having them handle lots of books, possibly loaning them an iPad, and giving
    them a pass to the event. Not sure how to handle this risk.
    - *How will this be publicized?* Between an event's social networking
    tool and Twitter, we'd probably be able to publicize a bookmobile's
    existence fairly effectively, even at a larger event. We could also make the
    poor person handling sales wear an excruciatingly funny and
    impossible-not-to-notice hat. ("Look for the guy wearing the giant pink
    sombrero with the flashing 'UX BOOK' sign on it!") Dragging a bunch of books
    on a little red wagon would also be hard to miss.
    - *And then what?* Hopefully, the nice helpers, dignity intact, send back
    our wagon, rack, iPad, and whatever else we loaned them. And they can keep
    the incredible collection of books, as noted before.

There are plenty of holes in this attempt to design a solution, but it's a
start. I'm hoping you might have some better ideas for getting your favorite
UX books to whatever conferences and events you'll be attending in the
future. And maybe some of us publishers could (ahem) cough up some free
books to whoever designs the best solution.

Thanks!

*Permalink:  http://is.gd/bShiu*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

June 9, 2010:  Globalizing an information architecture  (http://is.gd/cJzxZ)

I'm working with a large client who is about to jump with both feet into
that twilight zone of information architecture: designing for an audience
that is geographically, culturally, and linguistically global. It's a huge
challenge, as anyone who's worked on such a project will attest.

I grappled with this issue six years ago while consulting for another
multinational client, blogging about it
here<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/000246.html>
, here <http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/000249.html>,
andhere<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/000280.html>
(these
posts are especially notable for the incredibly wise comments).
Unfortunately, I've not had much opportunity to work in this space since
then. In the interim, I was hoping that some brilliant cosmopolitan
information architect (*Peter van Dijck*? *Livia Labate*? *Jorge Arango*?)
would have figured this space out, but those folks are wicked busy. After
some limited searching, I'm not sure we're that much further along than we
were in 2004.

So in the interest of resurrecting a six-year old conversation, here are
some questions. I plan to use these to get my client to think strategically
about the challenge of developing a multi-lingual, multi-cultural, and
multi-regional information architecture. Being the information architect
that I am, naturally I categorized them. Please chime in with your own
suggestions...
Language

    - When a user visits an organization's web site, should he expect to
    access content in his native language?
    - Which languages are most common to users?
    - Does that organization operate in its own "master" language?
    - Which languages have the greatest strategic value to the organization?
    Which would simply be nice to support? Which aren't a priority at all?
    - Does the information architecture's native language (e.g., label
    lengths might be quite different, or might not translate at all) translate
    well into other important languages? Are there other semantic issues to
    consider?

Geography

    - Are there geographic regions (e.g., countries, states/provinces,
    municipalities) that are important to users? Do they self-identify by any
    sort of geographic region when they use the organization's site, or does it
    matter at all to them?
    - Are there geographic regions (e.g., countries, states/provinces,
    municipalities, sales territories) that are important to the organization?
    - Why are these important (e.g., legal issues, tax collections, sales
    territories)?
    - What geopolitical disputes (e.g., China and Taiwan) might impact the
    information architecture?

Culture

    - Are there cultural issues that impact how users interact with online
    content in general?
    - Are there cultural issues that impact how users prefer to interact with
    this specific type of organization or industry in particular?
    - Does the existing information architecture's structure work well in
    other cultures (e.g., one culture might value hierarchical breadth over
    hierarchical depth)?

Confluence

    - Are there intersections of any of geography, language, and culture that
    stand out and merit special attention (e.g., Quebecois, Malay-speaking
    Singaporeans)?
    - How does the organization define the objects where these issues
    intersect? As "locales"?
    - Conversely, how does it define "locale" (the standard term for such an
    object; typically a pairing of language and country)?

The organization

    - How is comprehension of the organization impacted by
    language/geography/culture?
    - How about its products? Its services?
    - What resources is it currently devoting to i18n and
l10n<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I18n>?
    And where have these efforts begun (e.g., with content management)?
    - Is there an emphasis on i18n rather than l10n, or vice versa?
    - Does the organization consider a locale the same as a market? How are
    the latter defined today the organization?

The organization's content and information architecture

    - Are there specific products, services, and/or content areas that merit
    l10n? Put differently, are there certain products and services that are
    especially relevant for specific locales? Or not?
    - How might these be prioritized?
    - How do users find their way to an appropriate locale (or how should
    they)?
    - Where should they find their way to an appropriate locale (e.g., main
    page, landing pages, critical pages deep in the site)?
    - Are there other areas of the site that should make clear that different
    language/culture/geographic options are available, and provide those
    navigational "switching" options?

*Bloug permalink:*  http://is.gd/cJzxZ


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

June 15, 2010:  Site Search Analytics virtual seminar (June
23)<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2010/06/site_search_analytics_v\
irtual.html>

The fine folks at UIE have invited me to present one of their virtual
seminars on *June 23 at 1:30-3pm ET* (GMT-5). The topic is (surprise!) site
search analytics <http://www.uie.com/events/virtual_seminars/lr_analytics/>,
and working with *Jared Spool* and *Adam Churchill* (and having a deadline)
has whipped me into shape to pull together content not only for the seminar,
but for our erstwhile book on the same topic.

You can learn about the workshop by reading the UIE's
description<http://www.uie.com/events/virtual_seminars/lr_analytics/>
and
by watching the three minute
preview<http://www.slideshare.net/UIEpreviews/your-site-search-analytics-june-23\
>(via
SlideShare)
.

The regular price is $129, but *use code LOU to take $40 and get lifetime
access to the recording.* Of course, the price includes the live version,
when you can to get all your pals into a room to listen, watch, ask
questions, and generally harass me during the discussion section.

*Bloug
permalink<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2010/06/site_search_analy\
tics_virtual.html>
*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

June 24, 2010: Go work for PayPal

I've been consulting for the past year for PayPal <http://paypal.com>. So
now you know that I'm a paid shill when I encourage you (or good people that
you know) to apply for their open information architect
position<http://iainstitute.org/jobboard/jobs/job.php?id=5677>
.

That said, despite some initial skepticism I am very impressed by the
company. Although I'm not familiar with the salary and benefits package
they're offering, I'm sure it's reasonably good, as they've managed to
attract some really smart and highly motivated people.

And PayPal is beginning to tackle some really *meaty IA challenges* that
include:

    - Centering their design efforts on a *comprehensive user mental
model* (hooray
    for mental models <http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/mental-models/>!)
    - Figuring out and operationalizing the *measurement of their site's
    findability and comprehension*
    - Grappling with developing an *information architecture for a truly
    global audience*
    - Moving to a *new content management platform* (that alone should keep
    an army of information architects busy)

There's lots more going on there; I can imagine no shortage of interesting
IA work in PayPal's future.

So why was I skeptical early on? Well, my initial experiences taking
payments via PayPal (for IAI <http://iainstitute.org> membership dues, many
years ago) were not so good. The UX has gotten much better, but there is
still obviously much room for improvement (I'm not sure who that wouldn't be
true of). But my latest round of first-hand experience makes me hopeful;
since setting it set up on Rosenfeld Media's site, about 25% of our
customers immediately started paying via PayPal.

Surprisingly, PayPal has made this progress despite its culture of
data-driven decision-making. PayPal's senior leadership comes from the
worlds of banking and financial services, and as you might guess, these
aren't the kinds of people who are typically comfortable with investing in
areas—like UX—with a hazy return on investment. Yet they've done just that;
in fact, I've never worked with a company that had staffed so many smart
people to tackle user research, web analytics, and market research. It's
really an impressive group.

They're also not a risk-averse company. X.com is PayPal's effort to operate
as a platform for developers. When millions of people are using your
services to move their money, it's, umm, unsettling to imagine opening
things up a bit to perfect strangers. Yet PayPal is doing just that, and the
impact could be revolutionary (imagine coding in ways to accept payments
within that next game UI you design).

In short, I like the people, I like the work they're tackling, and I like
the company's overall approach. So I hope you'll consider applying for the
job <http://iainstitute.org/jobboard/jobs/job.php?id=5677>, or encouraging
others to do so.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*July 14, 2010:  Globalizing a small publishing house's site<http://is.gd/ds7jg>
*

I've blogged recently about helping my clients address how to globalize
their information
architectures<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2010/06/globalizing_a\
n_information_arc.html>.
You may know how much I like to eat my own dog
food<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/about/>,
so I've been wondering how Rosenfeld Media <http://rosenfeldmedia.com/>, as
tiny as it is, could do a better job of engaging with UX practitioners
globally. (I should note that we're already trying very hard; about 25% of
our sales are outside the US, and last year we added a British fulfillment
center<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/announcements/2009/12/hello_europe.php>to
better serve the European market.)

My current thinking came to me in a two minute stretch while showering
yesterday, so take it for what it's worth. (Man, it was a nice
shower<http://www.buttermilkspa.com/facilities.html>though!) But the
following concept seems pretty low-cost and, potentially,
useful in both symbolic and concrete ways. I'd love your feedback on it:

*How it'd work*

    - A "friend of Rosenfeld Media" who's a native speaker of a non-English
    language would volunteer to do the following:
       - Translate our tweets and post them to a language-specific RM account
       (e.g., "@RM_espanol").
       - Translate a page on the RM site (e.g.,
       http://rosenfeldmedia.com/espanol/") that includes our mission, a list
       of our products, and links to those products on the RM site and, if
       available, from publishers who've translated our books (currently many of
       our titles have our are being translated into Chinese and Korean). Even
       better, translate each product's brief description.
       - Facilitate communications between RM and non-English speakers by
       serving as a go-between/translator.
    - The generous friend would in turn receive:
       - Copies of all of our books and webinars.
       - Prominent mention on the page for that language.
       - Our undying gratitude.
       - The good feeling of helping connect their fellow language-speakers
       with more good UX content.

*Why to do it*

    - It's a low-cost and potentially high-impact way to connect and engage
    with UX practitioners with whom we have minimal contact with right now.
    We're a small company, but we do genuinely care about non-English speakers;
    this might be a nice way to show it.
    - It has SEO benefits--more non-English speakers will find our products.
    - It's nice for the publishers we currently partner with on translations,
    and may be a nice incentive for other publishers who are considering working
    with us to translate our titles in other languages.
    - We'll learn more about new markets through both direct engagement and
    analytics, and might learn that there are certain markets that we should be
    more involved in.

*Why not to do it*

    - Our books are written in English; will providing information about our
    books in other languages actually increase our sales? (BTW, we don't really
    make any money on the sales of our translated titles.)
    - A volunteer could be a poor translator or act maliciously in a language
    that we don't know; we would be pretty vulnerable.

What do you think?

(Discuss here:  http://is.gd/ds7jg )


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*September 13, 2010:  Workshops, books, and other updates
*

Summer is now officially over in this particular hemisphere; time for some
updates:

    - We have a book draft done. Yes, the search
analytics<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/>book
will finally come out this year!
    - *Steve Krug* and I are teaming up with the mother of usability, *Ginny
    Redish*, to teach day-long
workshops<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/site_search_analytics\
/>.
    We're doing a set in Washington, DC October 20-22. More details later this
    week; early registration closes September 24.
    - Rosenfeld Media has signed the incomparable *Caroline Jarrett* to write
    a book on survey design<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/survey-design/>.
    We're likely to announce at least two more book signings in the next month;
    very, very exciting stuff. We're also working on some other Rosenfeld Media
    projects that will go beyond books; more on this soon.
    - Still finding time to work with one or two clients at a time. Need a
    couple days of strategic information architecture
consulting<http://louisrosenfeld.com/consulting/>this fall? Talk to
me.
    - I've been interviewed a couple times recently; once by *Mari-Carmen
    Marcos* in *El Profesional de la Informacion* (in English, and on a whole
    bunch of
stuff<http://elprofesionaldelainformacion.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?ref\
errer=parent&backto=homemainpublications,1,1;>),
    and on search analytics by BoagWorld's *Paul Boag* (listen or
read<http://boagworld.com/usability/lou-rosenfeld>
    )
    - I'm now an official dad of a
second-grader<http://www.facebook.com/home.php#%21/photo.php?pid=6640213&id=7034\
98967&ref=fbx_album>.
    And of a little
boy<http://www.facebook.com/home.php#%21/photo.php?pid=6640213&id=703498967&ref=\
fbx_album>who's
starting to wield full sentences as deftly as he does dumptrucks.

Enough for now; thanks for reading!

*PERMALINK:*  *http://tinyurl.com/37ehgh4*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*September 14, 2010:  Redish + Krug + Rosenfeld
*

*
*

*Steve Krug* and I will be back to DC next month to teach our workshops—our
only stop this season! Things will be similar to last year—I'll teach site
search
analytics<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/site_search_analytics\
/>(much
updated now, as we finish the
book <http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/>) and Steve will
teach Do-It-Yourself Usability Testing<http://www.sensible.com/workshops.html>,
as covered in his new book<http://www.sensible.com/rocketsurgery/index.html>
).

But the really big news is that *Ginny Redish*, author of *Letting Go of the
Words <http://www.redish.net/content/books/lettinggoofthewords.html>,* will
be teaching her workshop on writing web
content<http://www.redish.net/content/DCworkshop2010.html>.
If you've read Ginny's book, you know there's no one better at covering this
topic.

You can register for one, two, or all three workshops—the more you sign up
for, the better the deal. If you register three or more attendees at a time,
the deal gets even better. And of course there's an early registration
discount (the deadline is *September 24*). Dates and details follow; we hope
to see you in DC (and that you'll help spread the word)!

    - October 20: *Steve Krug* teaches Do-It-Yourself Usability Testing: The
    Workshop <http://www.sensible.com/workshops.html>
    - October 21: *Ginny Redish* teaches Letting Go of the Words—Writing Web
    Content that Works <http://www.redish.net/content/DCworkshop2010.html>
    - October 22: *Lou Rosenfeld* teaches Site Search Analytics for a Better
    User
Experience<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/site_search_analytic\
s/>

*
Permalink:  *http://is.gd/famhr


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*September 28, 2010: Site search analytics hacks* (http://is.gd/fxLvX)
*
*I'm updating my site search analytics
workshop<http://louisrosenfeld.com/ssa/>slides to include some of the
new content from our upcoming book. These are
"hacks" that are specific to how site search analytics can help you improve
your content, navigation and metadata, and search performance. If you like
what you see, you should
register<https://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/site_search_analytics\
/Registration_Fall10.html>for
the
*October 22 workshop in Washington DC* (only one I'll teach over the next
six months or so):

*Content hacks*

    - Determining which content is the most valuable
    - Determining which content you should get rid of
    - Plugging content gaps
    - Making relevant content even more relevant
    - Learning how users understand your content
    - Getting marketing to do the right thing
    - Getting content owners to do the right thing

*Navigation and Metadata hacks*

    - Improving contextual navigation for specific types of pages
    - Creating a better site index
    - Creating metadata values
    - Developing metadata attributes
    - Testing and tuning metadata values

*Search hacks*

    - Plugging gaps in your search engine's index
    - Making query entry easier by fixing "The Box"
    - Helping searchers auto-complete their queries
    - Accommodating strange query syntax
    - Improving a "no results found" page
    - Helping searchers revise their queries and get better results
    - Determining what your best bets should be
    - Designing individual search results
    - Designing search results around specialized query types

*Permalink:  *http://is.gd/fxLvX


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*October 13, 2010: Banned terms for information architects* (
http://is.gd/g146x)

I'll bet dollars to donuts that you don't go a day without encountering one
of the following terms at work:

    - redesign
    - featured sites/resources/etc.
    - related links
    - advanced search
    - building community
    - social media (and social just about anything else)
    - portal

They're meaningless crutches; the lorem ipsums of information architecture.
Really, they're worse than meaningless. They enable us to defer dealing with
tough issues (e.g., "what do we really mean by a redesign anyway?"), but the
difficulties don't go away. They just compound their way to another day.

At a client meeting today, I did something that I've always wanted to do: I
banned the term "redesign". I tried to make it fun, charging $1 if the
clients said it, and $5 if I did (the money was to go to the poor temp who
got stuck with the job of taking notes). Kind of like what we do at home
when we swear in front of the kids. Anyway, it seemed to work; kick ass
discussion and, thankfully, it's no longer a "redesign" project.

What terms would you ban?


PERMALINK:  http://is.gd/g146x


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*October 17, 2010: Don't advance your search; refine it* (http://is.gd/g5PQg
)

As you can see from my last
post<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2010/10/banned_terms_for_infor\
mation_a.html>,
I'm a hater—and so are many of you (27 comments already—who says blogging is
dead?). One of the pet peeves I bitched about was "advanced search," and one
of you just asked me for some specific thoughts on this stinker. Here's what
I replied; figured I'd repost it here, while Bloug was on the subject:

Basically, it comes down to this:  "advanced search" is a bucket of
miscellaneous features that your search engine provider has no idea where
they should go—not surprisingly, as they 1) don't know your site, your
content, and your users; and 2) they're not paid to find out and/or tell you
where.  So these features—which often have diametrically opposed functions
(e.g., narrow versus broaden)—get left in something of a "help ghetto".  And
like any other form of help, they're pretty much useless unless
contextualized:  when you get zero results, then you want help broadening,
and so on.

Sure, there are exceptions. And sure, it doesn't really hurt to have a
prominent link to some piece of crap called "Advanced Search". (Whose site
doesn't prominently link to some piece of crap at some point? Let he who is
without sin cast the first Boolean operator.)

But I just don't see why information architects, and everyone involved with
designing search systems—especially vendors, who've generally shirked
responsibility—don't do these two things:

    1. *Design to refine.* Each and every choke point in the search
    experience affords an opportunity to introduce one of those features
    currently ghettoed away under "advanced search". Smart designers will take
    advantage of this opportunity. Not just because it's advantageous, but also
    because it's the responsible thing to do.
    2. *Implement (or demand) site search analytics.* (Yes, you knew that one
    was coming, and yes, having my
book<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/>done would
certainly help.)

Do both of these, and you'll be truly *closing the feedback loop with your
searchers.* The former will help you engage in something of an asynchronous
dialogue with searchers after they're done searching, and the latter will
enable you to engage in active dialogue with searchers *while* they search.


PERMALINK:  http://is.gd/g5PQg


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*October 25, 2010: Design is the easy part; lying and deceiving are the fun
part* (http://is.gd/gieUx)


Design (of all flavors) really is the easy part. Getting organizations to
actually act upon design recommendations? Another story entirely.

It's the story everywhere I go. In the past two weeks, for example: sitting
in on *Ginny Redish's* workshop, discussing it with *Steve Krug,* talking
with my own workshop attendees, working on-site with a client's team...
really, anywhere there's more than one designer in the room, you know this
frustrating subject will come up.

How does one get an organization design-ready? We usually start by trying to
change senior leaders' perspectives in two ways: by *making a case with
data,* and by *telling a story.* No doubt, both approaches are worthy and
worthwhile. But there's something else that we either are uncomfortable
acknowledging or simply afraid to pursue: *lying and deceiving.*

For example, I regularly counsel the teams I work with to look for
opportunities to "pin down" problematic leaders in areas that are just not
all that important. Like the site's main page. OK, it really is an important
page, but there are many other aspects of a site that also merit attention.
If leaders are going to battle over shreds of main page real estate, let
them. That'll make it possible for everyone else to move on to the other
important design challenges that need to get dealt with. This may not
qualify as a lie, but it's certainly deceptive.

So, two questions for you, dear readers:

    1. Why aren't we sneakier? We won't we lie and deceive when the means
    clearly justify the ends? Are we overly ethical? Is it a character flaw? Or
    a problem with our education? (Or maybe I'm full of crap?)
    2. If you do practice the dark art of deception, care to share an
    anecdote with your fellow devotees?

*
Permalink:  *http://is.gd/gieUx


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*October 26, 2010: Does this sound like a workshop you'd like to take? *(
http://is.gd/gkRDD)


As you can see from my recent posts, lately I've been thinking a lot about
my favorite whipping boy, redesign. I'd also like to create a new
workshop—one not so narrow as site search
analytics<http://louisrosenfeld.com/ssa/>or as broad as enterprise
IA <http://louisrosenfeld.com/eia/>. (And which avoids scary terms in the
title, like, um, "analytics" and "enterprise".)

So I just whipped this up. I'd love your input. Like the title? The flavor?
Does it make sense to you? Would you take it yourself, or what kind of
person (if any) would you recommend take it?

Thanks!

*Design to Refine: Developing a sustainable information architecture *

*When web sites are failing, site owners do dumb things. The dumbest is also
the most common: they engage in expensive, cosmetic redesigns that provide
little actual benefit. Worse, these redesigns quickly go stale, and need to
be repeated every few years.*

*But there's hope: by tuning your site's information architecture, you can
avoid suffering years of endless failed redesigns. Tuning means constantly
evaluating the needs of a site's users, sponsors, and environment, and
making sure those needs are met. Because a little will often go a long way
toward meeting those needs, tuning is cheap. And tuning isn't rocket
science; it's something you can do right now.*

*In this workshop, Lou Rosenfeld will get you on your way toward tuning your
site's information architecture. He'll show you how to: *

    - *Regularly sample from a balanced menu of regular research and
    analytics that you can do in-house, rather than commissioning huge,
    expensive one-off research studies that will end up in a filing cabinet*
    - *Determine the few design tasks—especially the low-hanging fruit—that
    merit the bulk of your attention*
    - *Gradually improve critical areas like contextual navigation and site
    search, rather than focusing on political hot potatoes like the main page
    and site-wide navigation*
    - *Identify and set up ongoing processes so your team can gently curate
    your site instead of reacting to an endless flood of projects*
    - *Keep the work (and the expertise) in-house, rather than paying
    external agencies to solve their favorite problems*
    - *Convince senior leadership to do the right thing, rather than redesign
    (again)*

*
PERMALINK:  *http://is.gd/gkRDD


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*October 30, 2010: Going Beyond User Research *(http://is.gd/guRa9)


Lately I've been hammering away on a lot of session and workshop
descriptions. It's nice to be working on new ideas, and it's wonderful to
have some great venues to try them out in. My last blog entry covered a new
workshop<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2010/10/does_this_sound_li\
ke_a_worksho.html>focused
on
*tuning an information architecture;* I'll teach it in April at UX
London<http://uxlondon.com/>(thanks
*Andy Budd* and friends!).

Below is a draft for a new keynote that, assuming y'all don't hate it, I'll
present for the first time at UX Lisbon <http://www.ux-lx.com/> in May. It's
a follow up to one I've given a couple times now—to mostly positive
reviews—called *Marrying Web Analytics and User
Research<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/marrying-web-analytics-and-user-ex\
perience>
.* I'm trying to go a bit broader here, and I'll confess to being worried
that it's just a wee bit over-ambitious. But let's see what you (and the
organizer, *Bruno Figueiredo*) think:

*On Not Declaring Victory: Going Beyond User Research*

As user research becomes firmly established in organizations around the
world, it's tempting to congratulate ourselves and retreat to our shiny new
labs. But our work is nowhere near complete. As currently practiced, user
research remains narrow in focus, often limited to the qualitative methods
that reflect our own educational biases, and the tools that fit within our
own comfort zones.

Other research practices, such as web analytics, business analytics, and
market research, are equally powerful ways of learning about users' wants
and needs. More importantly, they're often complementary with what we do.
When organizations consciously investigate *what* is going on together with
*why,* only then will they truly realize the value of all they invest in
their research.

In his keynote, Lou Rosenfeld will explore the complementary aspects of
these different research perspectives, argue for breaking down the silos
that divide them, and suggest a framework for developing products and
services that are better analyzed, better designed, and, ultimately, better
performing.

What do you think?


PERMALINK:  http://is.gd/guRa9


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*November 3, 2010: Contending with a second set of silos* (
http://is.gd/gFDRZ)


Like a lot of information architects, I make a living trying to break down
content silos that grow around organizational boundaries, and reorganize it
in ways that respond to users' needs. In fact, if you look at the banner of
my old workshop on enterprise information
architecture<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/eia/>,
you'll see *Kevin Cheng's* drawing of me literally blowing up organizational
silos.

So I'm finding it ironic that in the last couple years of my career, I'm
contending with a entirely new set of silos. Like content silos, these also
grow organically around political divisions within an organization, and to
the detriment of the organization. What's different about these silos is
that they each contain a different (and incomplete) collection of user
research, data, and reports. These silos are arranged by:

    - *Discipline:* web analytics data here, user research data there...
    - *Application:* Omniture jockeys here, SalesForce.com experts over
    there...
    - *Department:* Marketing stuff here, Business Analysis there...

There are other organizational silos like these, and none make sense,
really. They're legacies of political intrigue, technology-driven
purchasing, and worst of all, a piecemeal approach to how organizations
should set themselves up to make design and other major decisions.

If you could start a large organization from scratch, is this the sort of
apparatus you'd set in place to make major decisions? Unlikely. (In fact, if
you find yourself in a position to design your organization's
decision-making platform, I suggest
banning<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2010/10/banned_terms_for_in\
formation_a.html>all
those baggage-laden terms from the discussion.

I think you'd probably take something of a more balanced approach to
assembling the your research, along the lines of *Christian Rohrer's* Landscape
of User Research
Methods<http://www.useit.com/alertbox/user-research-methods.html>.
I love his use of the two axes: attitudinal/behavioral, and
quantitative/qualitative. Including his two axes, I'd add these other
dimensions:

    - things that tell you about *attitudes* vs. things that tell you about *
    behaviors*
    - things that are *quantitative* vs. things that are *qualitative*
    - things that tell you *what* vs. things that tell you *why*
    - things that help you *measure the world that you know* vs. things that
    *teach you about the world you don't know*

Working on this stuff a lot lately, for keynotes, in consulting... Are you?


PERMALINK:  http://is.gd/gFDRZ


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*What would you ask Nate Silver?*  (http://is.gd/i3iXp*)


*On Monday I'll be meeting with a personal hero, *Nate Silver,* currently a
blogger for the *New York Times.* I've followed his
work<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver>for so long that it's
hard to believe he's only 32 years old. Damn.

Nate is one of the
Sabermetricians<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabermetric>who, over the
past two decades, have used statistical analysis to radically
redefine how major league front offices (and fans) evaluate baseball
performance. (Read *Michael Lewis's* wonderful book
*Moneyball<http://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/0393324818\
>
* to learn more.) Nate devised a tool called
PECOTA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PECOTA>that is an incredibly
accurate predictor of a player's future performance.
He applied the same approach to polling and, ultimately, predicting
electoral results. Many found his site,
538.com<http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/>,
an indispensable resource for understanding, and bypassing, the biases
inherent in individual polls. 538.com netted him such accolades as being
listed as one of *Time Magazine's* 100 most influential people, an
appearance on the Colbert Report, and ultimately his current
gig<http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/>at the
*NY Times.*

Like many of us, I've been dragged kicking and screaming over the past few
years toward a more data-driven approach to design. It's even gotten to the
point where I'm writing (and yes, close to finishing!) a
book<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/>on site search
analytics. I'd never in a million years have predicted this.
But it's happening throughout the UX world. And it's hard to ignore the
parallels with, well, baseball. And electoral predictions. And many other
domains.

That's why I'm so excited that Nate will be one of the 2011 IA
Summit's<http://iasummit.org/>keynoters. I think we information
architects have a lot to learn about the
value of data-driven design, and I can't think of a better person to help us
understand what that transition may involve.

Please let me know what you'd like me to convey to Nate. What questions
should I ask him? What topics would you love to see him cover in Denver this
April? Thanks!
*
PERMALINK:*  http://is.gd/i3iXp


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*December 5, 2010:  User Experience and Publishing *(http://is.gd/igHUu)

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending my first unconference—Book
Camp NY<https://sites.google.com/site/bookcampny/>.
Even though I've been a publisher for a few years now, this was the first
publishing event I'd ever attended. OpenSky's <http://shopopensky.com/> *Mary
Ann Naples <http://twitter.com/#%21/manaples>* was kind enough to encourage
me to attend, and I figured it'd be a good taste of what to expect from
O'Reilly's Tools Of Change <http://www.toccon.com/toc2011> conference (where
I'll be speaking in February). So I put on my UX ambassador's hat and
volunteered to talk about UX and publishing (slides below).

In what's apparently true unconference style, a great discussion broke out,
so I only made it about a third of the way through my slides. The most
memorable nugget for me: editors often are no different than other other
kind of product manager—they think they know their readers' needs better
than the readers do.

As much as I hate to put together slides, it was a useful exercise for me
nonetheless. It made clear to me the parallels between UX—which, for me, is
about *designing products and services that engage users,* and
publishing—which I think is about *designing content that engages
readers.*(If you've read my blog before, you know I'm all about
engagement<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2009/02/engagement_and_s\
takeholding_an.html>
.)

That said, the exercise exposed to me that Rosenfeld Media needs to do a
better job of making its content more engaging, though I'm not quite sure
how (umm, "tweet this passage"?). As you'll see from the slides, most of
what I've done so far is use UX thinking to make the *company* better at
engaging with customers. Making more engaging *books *is another thing
altogether, although the fact that we've at least researched and tested our
books' design is still more than most publishers can claim.

Also, if I had more time, I'd have had as many slides on engaging with
authors and other sources of expertise. In fact, I'm hoping that next year
witnesses a major change at Rosenfeld Media—transforming from a publisher of
UX books to a purveyor of UX expertise in formats other than books. To pull
that off, we'd better damn well know how to engage those sources of
expertise. Wish us well.

Anyway, here you go; enjoy:
http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/book-campny-6023609

*Permalink/comments:  *http://is.gd/igHUu


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*The problem in going from vertical to horizontal *http://is.gd/dna4Y7

I was just ruminating over what's happened to the professions of
librarianship, where I come from, and journalism, where my wife cut her
teeth. Twenty years ago, when we were young professionals, libraries and
newspapers were places you'd go to work. They really aren't any longer.

The skills themselves have more relevance than ever. They're just not
stand-alone positions that you do in particular kinds of buildings. Instead,
they've become things you need to know to at least some degree wherever you
are. They've moved from vertical to horizontal.

Of course, this makes things really hard for people who self-identify
vertically, as in "I'm a librarian," or "I write for a newspaper". But even
for those who can imagine these skills' value in other settings, it's pretty
damned hard to figure out where to find a job.

So I'm wondering: are there useful parallels from other professions? And
might these serve as a roadmap for those oddly-blessed souls whose work is
moving from vertical to horizontal?

PERMALINK:  **http://is.gd/dna4Y7


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*My new information architecture workshop* (http://is.gd/SU69SR)

As I've mentioned
here<http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2010/10/does_this_sound_like_a\
_worksho.html>before,
I've been planning on assembling a new information architecture
workshop to teach in 2011. Well, it's 2011, so here we go: I've posted a
draft description of my new workshop below. It's called *Adaptable
Information Architecture: how to say no to your next redesign.* My goal is
to show you how to prioritize what you should work on and tune your
information architecture in an ongoing way.

Does it sound like something you'd want to take? If so, let me know and I'll
email you as soon as the schedule's firmed up. BTW, I'll be teaching it in *San
Francisco* in March, *Atlanta* in April, and *Chicago* in June (dates almost
set).

And, of course, I'd appreciate any general feedback you have. Thanks!


*Adaptable Information Architecture:  how to say no to your next redesign*

Your web site or intranet has major problems, and everyone knows it. Worse,
it's been that way for a very, very long time.

Occasionally someone tries to do something about it. Senior leaders
typically start with the insanely ambitious goal to "fix it once and for
all". The result? They throw a few pieces of expensive technology at the
problem, or they launch a huge redesign initiative that distracts everyone
for a year or two and often results in minimal, cosmetic improvements.

You, however, will continue to be stuck dealing with the mess, condemned to
repeat this painful
cycle<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/redesign-must-die-381947>every
few years. Unless you attend my workshop. I've been at this for over
15 years; I've seen (and will show you) more realistic and effective
techniques for improving your site's performance that will cost far less
than redesigns.

You can't make your site perfect, but you can make it much better: let me
show you how to tune your information architecture.
*

The day will include
*

    - A very quick overview of information architecture—so we're all on the
    same page
    - Practical ways to prioritize your information architecture's challenges
    and keep it tuned
    - A rich combination of lecture, discussion, and hands-on exercises
    - Handouts, including all the slides and a checklist of things you can do
    to tune your site's performance
    - Copies of my new book, *Site Search Analytics,* and my classic
book, *Information
    Architecture for the World Wide Web*

*

What you'll learn
*

    - How to prioritize the IA challenges your organization should be
    addressing, rather than wasting money on ambitious attempts to "boil the
    ocean"
    - Practical steps you can take to tune and improve your site's:
       - Top-down navigation (e.g., main page, site index)
       - Contextual navigation (e.g., moving horizontally through the guts of
       your content)
       - Search performance (e.g., search results design, best bets
    - Ways to reframe and reposition "one-off" projects, such as content
    inventory, as ongoing processes
    - How to analyze search data and develop content models—two areas of
    opportunity for improvement that many organizations overlook
    - Talking points and approaches that can help change your leaders' minds
    about redesigns

*

Who should attend?
*

Information architects, content strategists, user researchers, designers, UX
team managers, and anyone who is responsible for managing and improving a
large web site or intranet.

PERMALINK:  http://is.gd/SU69SR


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*Some recent interviews *(http://is.gd/EcgxWq)

Hi all; just capturing some links to a buncha recent interviews that people
have been nice enough to do with me:

    - *Brad Nunnally* interviewed me in *Johnny Holland*: "Web Analytics and
    User
Experience<http://johnnyholland.org/2011/01/18/web-analytics-and-user-experience\
-an-interview-with-louis-rosenfeld/>:
    An Interview with Louis Rosenfeld". Lots of retweets but, oddly, no
    comments. Hmmm... negative attention?
    - I'm the subject of Episode
8<http://thedigitalife.com/2011/01/episode-8/>of
    *The Digital Life,* Involutions Studios' podcast series. It was great to
    talk with *Jonathan Follett* and reconnect with my old pal, *Dirk
    Knemeyer.*
    - *Dan Klyn* also interviewed me for his University of Michigan
    information architecture course, recorded it, and convinced me to let it go
    public. Only later did I remember that I said things in it that I'd probably
    regret. The good news is that I can't find it on the Web. I really like it
    when Google screws up that way...

I appreciate being asked my opinion, though I'm not entirely sure why these
nice folks bothered. Thanks though!

PERMALINK:  http://is.gd/EcgxWq
(And hey, you might want to sign up for the *Rosenfeld Review*
http://is.gd/R9ONAA )


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*From publisher of books to purveyor of expertise *(http://is.gd/731gbO)

Here are the slides for a
talk<http://www.toccon.com/toc2011/public/schedule/detail/16350>I'll
be giving at O'Reilly's Tools of Change for Publishing conference on
February 15, here in NYC. *John Oakes* of OR Books
<http://www.orbooks.com/>and I are both talking about new business
models in publishing. Well, in my
case, I'm suggesting that it's now impossible for many publishers to even
have a business model.

I start with the question actually posed to me by one of Rosenfeld
Media's<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/>recently-signed authors (see if you
can guess who from the photo): "why
can't you tell me what I'll make based on sales?". After some panicked
head-scratching, I realized that it's really, really hard to even say what a
"sale" is, when we're dealing with everything from $199 purchases for our
entire catalog to micropayments for book excerpts. Really, we're dealing
with an almost limitless number of business models, all at the same time,
and all changing every fifteen minutes.

I then move on to suggesting that the only model for publishers that makes
much sense is (shudder) faith-based: faith in knowing one's audience, and
faith in knowing the expertise that will benefit that audience. Those things
are not and can never be commodified. The publisher's job is to, from here
on out, look for opportunities to package that expertise for the audience in
all ways that make sense: not just books, but presentations, workshops,
webinars, instructional videos, consulting... you name it. In effect, the
future isn't in publishing books, but purveying expertise.

And there you have it; now you don't need to look at the slides. But here
they are, nonetheless:
*Is there such a thing as a good business model for publishing these
days?<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-good-busin\
ess-model-for-publishing-these-days>


PERMALINK:  http://is.gd/731gbO
*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*Teaching a new IA workshop: Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco*  (
http://is.gd/HwkovT) *

**Steve Krug* and I are finally live with our spring 2011
workshops<http://www.eventbrite.com/org/855924825?s=3212105>:
*San Francisco March 23-25, Atlanta April 27-29,* and *Chicago June
1-3.*We've moved our registration system over to EventBrite, which
chewed up some
time, and to make things even more interesting, we've added a fantastic
third speaker to each of the three cities. Get this: *Indi Young* on developing
mental models <http://www.sensible.com/indiyoungworkshop.html>, *Whitney
Quesenbery* on storytelling for
UX<http://www.wqusability.com/storytelling-workshop.html>,
and *Ginny Redish* on writing for the
web<http://www.sensible.com/ginnyredishworkshop.html>.
Steve, of course, will cover DIY usability
testing<http://sensible.com/workshops.html>.
I'm thrilled to be part of such a lineup, and that Rosenfeld
Media<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/>is the series' main sponsor. You can
register
here <http://www.eventbrite.com/org/855924825?s=3212105>.

What will I teach? My *new workshop* on Adaptable Information
Architecture<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/adaptable-informat\
ion-architecture/>.
I'm increasingly convinced that most large organizations will continue to
fail if they don't end the painful cycle of "redesign every three years and
hope for the best" and move toward a rational process based on
prioritization and tuning an information architecture. I've worked with
enough Fortune 500s, government agencies, and institutions of higher ed over
nearly twenty years to have seen so much waste and failure, and dammit, I
want to put an end to it.

Come to my workshop and you'll learn some practical ways to move from insane
one-off projects with the goal of "getting it right" to rational ongoing
processes to continually improve your site. Here are the
details<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/adaptable-information-a\
rchitecture/>;
please join us.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*Tilting at silos again* (http://is.gd/DERSNp)

Just finished a new deck for a talk called "Beyond User Research". I'll be
giving it at both the IA Summit <http://2011.iasummit.org/> in Denver (April
2) and as one of the keynotes at UX Lisbon <http://www.ux-lx.com/> (May 13).
Silos are once again featured—only this time, rather than bitching about
content silos, I'm railing at how the insights that come from various
varieties of user research are so fragmented that organizations are missing
out on their true potential.

I've given a couple of lackluster keynotes before, so this time I decided to
unlock the amazing power of Brooklyn's UX community and do a dry run. Get
this: I got *Alex Wright, Anders Ramsay, Mark Raheja,* and *Paul Ford* to
sit with me for almost two hours of practice and critique. Unbelievably
helpful.

I'm very glad I moved here.

Anyway, here <http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/beyond-user-research> are
the slides; feedback welcomed!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*Another new talk and other good things* (http://is.gd/cd17yZ)

Because I'm getting asked a fair bit, here are the slides
<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/site-search-analytics-for-a-better-user-ex\
perience>from
my talk two days ago at SXSW. You can download them from SlideShare if you
like. It's a very nuts-and-bolts talk on how site search analytics can help
you improve your site. Lots of credit to *Jared Spool,* as I gave an earlier
version of this talk as part of UIE's virtual seminar
series<http://www.uie.com/events/virtual_seminars/lr_analytics/>.
Not only is Jared a wonderful presenter, but he's a wonderful coach of
presenters.

The talk is also a good complement to the bigger-picture talk "Beyond User
Research <http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/beyond-user-research>" I'll
be giving at both the IA Summit <http://2011.iasummit.org/> (Denver, April
2) and UX Lisbon <http://www.ux-lx.com/> (umm, Lisbon, May 13). This one
seems to be getting a lot of SlideShare love; I'm pretty excited about it.

I'm giving a lot of talks <http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/> lately.
And, if you've known me lo these past six or so years, the site search
analytics book is done! Should go on sale in May. Click
here<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/info/publication_notificati\
on/>to
get notified (and a discount) when it goes on sale.

And SXSW? What a blast, though one day was plenty. Good to be home. Thanks
to *Fred Beecher* for organizing a wonderful panel (which SXSW oddly calls a
"workshop"); it was great to hear his and *Austin Govella's* takes on the
intersections of web analytics and user research.
*sign up <http://is.gd/9viTRS> for the Rosenfeld Review
*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*Slides for my Adaptable Information Architecture workshop*
Giving it for the first time Friday in San Francisco; then Atlanta (April
29) and Chicago (June 1). Details and registration
info.<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/adaptable-information-arc\
hitecture/>
Here they are, courtesy of SlideShare: *Adaptable Information Workshop
slides <http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/adaptable-ia-presentation>**

*sign up <http://is.gd/9viTRS> for the Rosenfeld Review


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*The IA Summit: joint custody *(http://bit.ly/g7aUO9)*
*

It <http://2011.iasummit.org/> really was great. Something of a bounce-back
year in so many ways—energy, attendance, experience, and most of all,
content. Thanks so much to everyone who was involved—from *Jess McMullin*and
*Samantha Starmer*, who were co-chairs—down to everyone who bothered to show
up. Even those of you who got something remotely from the Twitter
stream<http://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23ias11>.
Awesome.

I'll admit that I'd been wondering if this would be our last IA Summit. If
it was, it'd be quite sad. But all things must pass, and a twelve-year run
would be nothing to sneeze at. I know I'd be proud. But there will be an
#ias12 (and in New Orleans, which is wonderful news).

Unfortunately, next year's event will once again be attended by a 900 lb.
gorilla that, like me, has attended every IA Summit: a broken business
model. The IA community's flagship event is owned by ASIS&T<http://asist.org/>,
an entirely different community's professional association. The IA
community's own professional association, the IAI <http://iainstitute.org/>,
has no ownership stake in the IA Summit. This is nuts.

I love and respect the people involved in both organizations. I'm the IAI's
cofounder. I've known *Dick Hill,* ASIS&T's executive director for twenty
years. Some of my best friends are information scientists.

But to have one community's organization handling the major annual event on
behalf of another community continues to make zero sense. It's an historical
accident (my fault, to some degree) that needs to get ironed out. Let's face
it, #ias11 worked well despite this huge crack in the event's business
model. We got lucky this time; we might not be so lucky next year.

Once and for all, we need to make this a jointly owned event. ASIS&T can
continue to handle the business end of things, such as finding a venue,
handling money, and so on. Having taken a risk on our community back in
2000, and having remained committed to continuing the event—even during some
lean years—ASIS&T deserves the right to continue. And let's not forget: it
legally owns that right.

The IAI should own the programming, promotional, and experiential aspects of
the event. This is obvious, and I doubt anyone at ASIS&T would disagree. In
fact, many people already assume (incorrectly) that this is the case. The
IAI must own at least some aspect of its own community's keystone event, and
the IDEA conference, as wonderful as it is, is not that event.

Sure, the IAI could create a competing event. But that will create
marketplace confusion, not to mention bad blood. It could also fragment the
IA community itself. Let's not go there.

ASIS&T could say no to sharing. But they'll eventually lose much of the
volunteer juice that handles programming, promotions, and the event's
experience. This is what will kill off IA Summit—if not immediately, within
five years. Besides, saying no would weaken the IA community by denying our
representative organization official ownership of (and revenue from) our own
main event. ASIS&T, which has been wonderfully supportive of the IAI all
along, has no interest in seeing that happen.

So let's do joint custody. It won't be simple and it won't be easy, but it
can and needs to get done. The alternatives present some huge, ugly,
we-don't-want-to-go-there risks. And the kid looks like a winner, at least
the morning after Denver.

And let's fix this problem now, while there are good feelings and great
energy, while there is momentum, and while our backs aren't against the
wall.


sign up <http://is.gd/9viTRS> for the Rosenfeld Review


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The new Redesign Must Die talk (http://bit.ly/fMpUIL)

Another day, another bloody presentation. I use the term "bloody" because
I'm in the UK for #UXLondon at the moment, which instantly makes me an
honorary Englishman. I can eat fry for breakfast, duck into a subway without
paying a fare, and, of course, talk about bloody this and bloody that.

Anyway.

This presentation is an updated version of my old Redesign Must Die talk,
given a few years back. I think that the only slide to survive this
redesi... (cough) new version is the infamous one featuring the kittens. If
you care nothing for redesign and only for kittens, jump ahead to slide #5.
Otherwise, prepare to witness my
wrath<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/redesign-must-die>
.


sign up <http://is.gd/9viTRS> for the Rosenfeld Review


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sweat the important things http://bit.ly/jU0Yni

I've used the following diagram in many workshop presentations (like this
one<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/adaptable-information-archi\
tecture/>).
It's homely, but it always seems to resonate well with at least a few of my
workshop attendees:

[image: Lou's scorecard of user wants and needs]

Just got asked to explain what's going on here, and realized I'd never done
so outside the workshop context. So here goes:

One reason sites suck is that so many of us have forgotten why our sites
exist. We get distracted, lose sight of priorities, and end up with sites
that don't do the most important things users want. Such a site is kind of
like Swiss Army knife without the, um, knife.

This simple little report card forces you to (re)prioritize what your site's
there for in seven simple steps:

    1. Identify critical audience segments
    2. Determine what each really, really wants
    3. Determine what stakeholders really, really want for those segments
    4. Combine #2 (wants) and #3 (needs) through negotiation
    5. Evaluate performance
    6. Fix what's not working
    7. Repeat regularly

Simple, eh? Yet a frightening proportion of organizations I've worked with
can't:

    1. Identify critical audience segments
    2. Determine what each really, really wants
    3. Determine what stakeholders really, really want for those segments

...and so, they're completely screwed when it comes to doing these things:

    1. Combine #2 (wants) and #3 (needs) through negotiation
    2. Evaluate performance
    3. Fix what's not working
    4. Repeat regularly

Really, how can you operate a site if you don't know who the primary
audiences are, what their critical needs are, and what stakeholders want for
each audience? Yes, I'm talking to you; don't try to hide.

And, buster, if you're not evaluating your performance on major tasks, how
the hell can you know what to fix?

By the way, repeating this regimen regularly (step #7) is tocostly,
pointless
redesigns<http://www.louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2011/04/the_new_redes\
ign_must_die_talk.html>
as
garlic is to vampires.

Some elaboration:

    - Users' wants come from (drum roll, please) user research! I'm a big fan
    of site search analytics as one way of coming up with a priority-ordered
    list of wants, but you should use other approaches, like clickstream traffic
    analysis and inbound call analysis. Put another way, what methods do you use
    to determine which tasks to include in task analyses? Inject them into this
    column.
    - Users' most common wants will account for a huge proportion of all
    their wants. See Zipf Distribution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law>.
    Put differently, a little inevitably goes a long way, whether we're talking
    search queries, document usage, you name it. Use this strange law of nature
    (and IA) to your advantage.
    - Users' needs are what stakeholders *think* users need. E.g.,
    Stakeholder: "We think all applicants will want to know about our alumni
    profiles". You: <sarcasm>"Sure..."</sarcasm> So populate this column by
    asking stakeholders.
    - What's this negotiation stuff in step #4? It's where you show your user
    data to stakeholders, compare notes, and combine what they've come up with
    anecdotally with your own evidence-driven approach. This is the hard part,
    but this is the stuff that separates UX mice from UX men. Uncomfortable
    negotiating? Congratulations: you've just hit your career ceiling.
    - It's an academic example; so I used letter grades. Score things however
    you want; just score them, baby! That's how you'll know which need to be
    addressed.

Like this stuff? Then I've got a
workshop<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/adaptable-information-\
architecture/>
for
you (one more this spring--in Chicago, June 3).


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*1 UX lesson for your C-level friends* (http://bit.ly/jSXEkB)

Quick: you have the undivided attention of your organization's senior
leaders for the next ten minutes. What one thing would you teach them about
user experience?

(Collecting answers on my site, naturally: http://bit.ly/jSXEkB)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]