*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]

The Metrics of In-Betweenness (http://bit.ly/krBYZg)

I just read somewhere that when organizations reach a threshold of 150
employees, collaboration ceases. I might quibble with the
black-and-whiteness of such a statement, but it feels about right to me.

If this really is the case, then the rational path for large organizations
is to to keep chopping themselves up into smaller pieces that enable
communication, collaboration, and innovation. In my consulting, I've seen
companies with successful product groups that are about this size. These
groups have their own KPI and often their own P&Ls. All good.

But usually there is no equivalent group that owns the glue, the connective
tissue between product groups. That means cross-promotion is often as poor
as promotion is good. In other, non-commercial contexts—say a corporate
intranet—that missing glue destroys divisions' ability to communicate and
collaborate with each other—which is still kind of important if a large
organization is to function at all.

Many senior leaders recognize the silo problem, but they solve it the wrong
way: if one hierarchical approach to organizing their business doesn't work,
try another hierarchy. Don't like the old silos? Create new ones. This dark
tunnel leads to an even darker pit: the dreaded—and often horrifically
ineffective—reorg.

Information architects have unique skills for addressing the problem of
silos. We're great at creating connective tissue. But this is hard stuff to
explain to non-IAs. And we're awful at making the case that we have
something to offer.

I hate to use the dreaded 'R' word, but if information architects are going
to remain relevant, we need to apply our skills to connecting content across
silos in a way that senior leaders can understand. In other words, we have
to demonstrate the value of doing a good job connecting content across silos
in a quantifiable way. We need to come up with better metrics for two areas:

    1. *Contextual Navigation:* Moving people horizontally between content
    and, ultimately, between silos of content.
    2. *Search:* Enabling people to drill down quickly into a site's deep
    content, regardless of which silo owns that content.

Many identify information architecture with only its top-down elements, like
main pages and site hierarchies. These other two pillars of IA are far more
important, far richer in opportunity, and as yet unexplored and
under-exploited by so many large organizations.

Metrics tend to find their way into KPI. Good metrics lead to great KPI. If
we information architects can develop better metrics to help optimize these
two areas, today's voids of in-betweenness will be transformed into
tomorrow's valuable real estate. We'll see large organizations that have
product managers, teams, and strong KPI built not for silos, but for the
stuff in between silos. And a clear path from information architect to
product manager will emerge to the delight and relief of the many
information architects who are currently pondering their future relevance.

Blog entry + comments: http://bit.ly/krBYZg
sign up <http://is.gd/9viTRS> for the Rosenfeld Review


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

You know you're maintaining too many blogs when... (http://bit.ly/r586Ov)

...you forget to mention on your main blog that your new book is now on
sale.

D'oh.

Well, it is! Grab a copy of *Search Analytics for Your
Site<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/>:
Conversations with Your Customers* directly from Rosenfeld
Media<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/>:
US$39 gets you the book in paperback and (instant, DRM-free) PDF, ePUB, and
MOBI. US$22 gets you the digital versions only.

The
testimonials<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/content/testimonial\
s/>
and
tweets are nice; hopefully the Amazon reviews <http://amzn.to/oarAUT> will
be as well.

Apropos, *UX Matters* published a sample
chapter<http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/content/sample_chapter/>
and
aninterview<http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2011/07/site-search-analytics-a\
-conversation-with-lou-rosenfeld.php>
with
me, and *SearchEngineLand* has run the first of a two-part
interview<http://searchengineland.com/interview-with-louis-rosenfeld-author-of-s\
earch-analytics-84637>.
(Thanks to respective interviewers *Kristina Mausser* and *Shari Thurow!*)

And more thanks to the many of
you<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/info/acknowledgments/>
who
helped and prodded me lo these many years to finish the thing!

Anyway, please grab a copy and let me know what you think. Even
better, post<http://amzn.to/oarAUT> your
reactions on Amazon.

*permalink: http://bit.ly/r586Ov*


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

I'll be teaching Adaptable Information
Architecture<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/adaptable-informat\
ion-architecture/>
this
fall in three cities:

    - *Washington, DC:* September 9
    - *Seattle:* September 26
    - *London:* October 4

This is part of the growing Rosenfeld Media UX Workshop
tour<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/workshops/>,
and I'll be joined by *Indi Young, Steve Portigal, Anders Ramsay,* and (in
all three cities) *Steve Krug.*

As always, the sessions are small and intimate. Also highly practical and, I
like to think, very engaging. And, as much as it pains me, we've cut prices
(given how crowded the UX workshop calendar is getting, this is a given).

My workshop starts with a fiery version of my Redesign Must Die
talk<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/redesign-must-die>,
and then digs deeply into the many more effective (and less expensive)
alternatives. I can pretty much assure you that what you bring back to work
will be far more valuable than the $495 you paid to attend.

If you'd like to learn more, check out the session
description<http://louisrosenfeld.com/presentations/seminars/adaptable-informati\
on-architecture/>
or
peruse the
slides<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/adaptable-ia-presentation>
.


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

A simple model for gradual engagement (http://bit.ly/r5d7A9)
*
*

Design is complex. And in the face of complex challenges, we often reach for
the false comfort of black-and-white solutions. Lately, however, I've been
reaching for onions.

[image: onion-layer model]
(This one was kindly created by the incomparable *Eva-Lotta
Lamm*<http://www.evalotta.net/>
.)

*Onion-layer models help make the case for and rather thanor approaches to
solving problems.* They are a powerful visual way to communicate the shades
of gray that invariably color the solutions required by complex design
challenges.

Here's an example that came up during a recent client engagement. Their
challenge: work in a variety of new features—many which would require some
sort of authentication—into their commerce site. Part of the challenge was
the disturbingly large number of features that needed to be integrated. The
other part was the risk of hitting users with too many features too soon or,
conversely, hiding too many behind a daunting, crocodile-infested
registration moat.

Clearly some sort of framework was necessary to introduce those features at
the right pace and at the right time. If successful, this framework would
transform visiting lurkers into fully engaged, fully registered customers.
If not, we would all be screwed.

I came up with this simple approach for the onion layers:

    - *Layer 0:* User visits the site (unauthenticated; no cookies, no
    nothing)
    - *Layer 1:* User asks the site a question (for example, a search query)
    - *Layer 2:* Site asks the user a question (would you like save this
    product to a wishlist?)
    - *Layer 3:* Site suggests something to the user (you might enjoy these
    products ordered by people like you)
    - *Layer 4:* Site acts on the user's behalf (we've gone ahead and saved
    these products to your account's list of frequently-ordered items)

There are lots of good models for this sort of dialogic approach, ranging
from the reference librarian's
interview<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_interview>
  and expert systems <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system>
design to permission
marketing<http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/01/permission-mark.html>
  and *Luke Wroblewski's* concept of gradual
engagement<http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1128>.
And my layers here shouldn't be taken too literally. In fact, the client
team quickly came up with a smarter and more sophisticated version of this
model.

But the onion-layered approach is useful nonetheless, because it underlines
the importance of gradualism. And it forces us to answer some important
questions:

    - How do we actually get user to move from one layer to another?
    - Have we demonstrated the next level's value?
    - Have we earned users' trust yet?

Design is rarely black-and-white, rarely a binary decision-making process.
We need more models, even ones that are smelly and make us cry, to help
demonstrate the power of *and*over *or.*

*Permalink: http://bit.ly/r5d7A9*


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

Thinking of writing a book?

Just got asked for the Nth time by a colleague for advice on whether or not
they should write a book. Figured I should share my advice, or at least
capture it here so I can point folks to it in the future. Here goes:

    1. First ask yourself if a book is the appropriate package for your
    content (and its users).
    2. If it is, ask yourself if you really want to spend at least a year of
    your precious time and effort to write one.
    3. If you do, ask yourself if you want to publish it yourself, or if you
    see value in having a publisher work with you. Some people can pull off a
    book on their own; others like/need to have editorial, production,
    promotion, and distribution handled by someone else.
    4. If you want a publisher, find the one whose audience most closely
    matches the one you wish to reach. While I believe that some publishers are
    far superior to others ;-) ultimately we do much of the same thing: match
    books with our audiences.
    5. If you have identified multiple publishers that might be appropriate,
    figure out which one will actually help promote your book. (You'll still
    have to do a lot of it yourself, but it'd be swell if your publisher would
    also shoulder some of the promotional burden.)
    6. If one publisher seems to promise to promote your book more than
    others, then examine their track record and see if it's covered in bullshit.

That's it! Hope this helps.
Permalink: http://bit.ly/oa6vv5


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

Closing the Findability Gap: 8 better practices from Information
Architecture

This is the closest thing I've done to a big picture "what IA is good for
and where it's going" talk in a very long while. Hope you find the
slides<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/findability-gap-9383069>useful.


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

Updated site search analytics deck

Just presented this one at the Web 2.0
Expo<http://www.web2expo.com/webexny2011/public/schedule/detail/21140>
this
morning. As part of my program of continual improvement in presentation
creation, I've beefed up the practical stuff. Hope you find it useful:
*Site Search Analytics: 8 things you can
do<http://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/site-search-analytics-for-a-better-user-\
experience>
**
**Permalink: http://bit.ly/qICoiG*


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

Upcoming UIE seminar on information architecture (http://bit.ly/qU3TCy)
*
*

I'm frustrated.

I've taught my full day workshops probably seventy times over the past
decade. I've increasingly downplayed what I call "top-down navigation"—you
know, main pages, site hierarchies, and the such—in favor of the other two
hugely more important areas of IA: search and contextual navigation. You
know, the stuff that unlocks your deep content.

And site maps and wireframes? I don't think I've addressed them since the
second edition of the Polar Bear book.

Well, it happened again today. I heard someone mention "IA and search". As
if they're separate things. Folks, IA is all about helping people find
information. That means helping users browse and search and ask questions,
as well some other things, like orienting them.

(Worst thing is that I sometimes hear self-styled information architects
talk this way.)

Well, dammit, once again I'm going to try to dispel some myths about IA. And
offer some concrete suggestions about what IA can do for you aside from
wireframes. On November 3, I'm teaching the UIE
virtual<http://www.uie.com/> seminar:
"8 Better Practices from Information
Architecture<http://www.uie.com/events/virtual_seminars/conversation/>".
During the talk I'll map out some new directions for what IA (and
information architects) should be about, and some concrete areas where IA
can make a difference for your organization.

Please join us. It's 90 minutes of your time. If I don't make a reasonable
case for IA at this seminar, I'll surrender and just stew in my frustration.
Silently alone. For eternity.

No pressure.

PS Code "ROSENFELD" gets you $40 off lifetime access to the seminar's
recording. Once more, here's
where<http://www.uie.com/events/virtual_seminars/conversation/> to
learn more and register.


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

Meet me (and friends) in Mountain View and NYC (http://bit.ly/x7DRCp)

The never-ending Rosenfeld Media UX
Workshops<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/workshops/> tour
continues! I'll be teaching my pragmatic approach to information
architecture <http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/workshops/adaptable-ia> at 500
Startups in Mountain View (March 5); I'll be joined there by *Luke
Wroblewski* (Web Form
Design<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/workshops/webformdesign/>,
March 6) and *Steve Krug* (Do-It-Yourself Usability
Testing<http://sensible.com/workshops.html>,
March 7).

In New York City, I'll be teaching my IA
workshop<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/workshops/adaptable-ia> on
May 23; *Rachel Hinman* teaches Mobile Prototyping
Essentials<http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/workshops/mobile-prototyping/>
on
May 24, and Steve teaches his usability
workshop<http://sensible.com/workshops.html> on
May 25.

These are really practical workshops—very small, very hands-on—and a great
way to boost your UX team's skillset quickly and cheaply. Please spread the
word; hope to see you there!

P.S. We're looking to add a third city. What should it be?


Louis Rosenfeld :: http://louisrosenfeld.com :: @louisrosenfeld
Rosenfeld Media :: http://rosenfeldmedia.com :: @rosenfeldmedia
keep up with <http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/stay_connected.php> Rosenfeld
Media


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