content-strategy-forum / csf-glossary Goto Github PK

I propose discussing the addition of two terms:

• frontend content strategy
• backend content strategy

(Both hyphenated or not hyphenated for consistency. As a matter of style guidelines, we would say not hyphenated; i.e. not 'front-end'.)

These are emerging terms in the field of content strategy that distinguish the front-side processes and tactics (editorial stuff) from the back-side (engineering stuff) as talked about by Anne Rockley.

Unlike "content strategy" (which is currently dropped as a glossary term), they do not suggest a field of study. Similar terms being information architecture, content marketing, technical communication, interaction design, etc. All of which are not suitable for the glossary, in my opinion, because they are fields of study that don't need definitions as far as this project is concerned.

Rather, the terms I'm proposing for consideration are specific subareas of focus, and have their own related (and overlapping) vocabularies, many of such terms will likely end up in the glossary.

I also like these terms because they are an easier concept to grasp about division of labor in the workforce, and as some of us may be acutely aware, that distinction is not clear among many in the content fields.

Finally, they are a less buzzy/cliquey way of people wanting to say 'intelligent content strategy' and 'content marketing', which I don't even think would be accurate in this case.

As an after-thought, "frontend strategy" and "backend strategy" would make good categorization terms for the glossary at the very least. These and few others could then be used in production development to enable glossary users to filter terms in a few key ways. This is triggering an idea already. Expect a new issue on this point too, but it's a separate consideration from the proposal I'm making now.

Too general.

Too general.

See proposal and arguements in #32 .

This term was originally proposed by Lisa Trager. I feel it's out of scope for purposes of this glossary, but I favor 'adaptive content' in it's place. See #38

Assigned to me with a shoulder review by @vinishgarg

I propose to drop this term (and the singular form of it). It's too general. Same for 'content goal'.

If it was a type of 'content goal, that would be debatable, but then it might be too granular because you'd need to list all types of content goals, and that seems like a sub-set to a glossary, not main glossary terms.

An LoCS term. Don't remove the label. Someone had started definition draft copy here...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10BhqrEk3N4VbOr3YYRPztpnhDn7tJ7v9IUBlVvkeogI

How imperative is it to include this term in a content glossary. That's not being cheeky, that's a serious question. Clearly content is a key part of wireframes in terms of showing architecture and organization. But when you step back from that and just consider the thing -- the wireframe itself -- is it still feasible to add it as a term?

Michaels Andrews proposed this term in the prior Drive workflow (see terms register). His comment in relation to "omnichannel" and the dropped term, "multichannel":

I think we might want to include "multiplatform publishing". The perspective is on the different platforms the publisher needs to address. Omnichannel is a customer orientation, providing customers with access to many channels.

Primary term added to index. Supersedes the synonymous term, 'multichannel' — #11 .

Still to do:

1. Ensure definition conforms to structure convention.
2. Is there a safe figure that can be used? For example, a schematic of an omnichannel concept?
3. Need at least 2 references. Could maybe include this one? ... http://www.intelligentcontentconference.com/5-ws-adaptive-content/

Transferring from old register. I think Michael Andrews may have proposed this term originally.

How is this different from 'structured content', which is an LoCS term? We either need one or the other if they are synonymous, not both. In which case, which is the primary term? Seems to me that would be 'structured content'.

This was originally proposed for dropping by @vinishgarg . I second the motion. This shouldn't even need a third motion because the term is obviously off the radar. Too general.

@vinishgarg said:

If we have "repurposing", should we have "curation" or "aggregation" too?

Too obvious in meaning. Too high level.

Seriously? This needs defined? No.

Jonathan Colman asks:

Possible brand term?

I propose this term is dropped. For one thing, it too heavily favours a discipline. If we allowed this, we'd be hard-pressed not to allow other discipline labels like content marketing, information architecture, editorial strategy, and so on. These don't need defined, and they certainly don't reflect a core set of collaborative terms across disciplines.

This is listed as a target term, but I think it needs discussion for glossary relevance. If we don't have terms like "content management" (and we shouldn't), then why would we included DAM?

Repo file not started.

See draft copy in old Drive file...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11MJeI_4IKMGpndfRfAWYsiT5wksJbKQno7ERA7ZXvCk

@vinishgarg

It looks like multiple projects can be created in context of the repo, which could be useful, but we won't create any yet until we see how they might best be used, if at all. We'll use these issues for the time being.

Forget that other project link I sent you. I will be deleting that project.

These people contributed to the initial glossary kick-off effort prior to our move to GitHub under the new collaboration process. As pioneers on the effort, they will be credited in final production according to their respective contributions as outlined in collaboration levels:

Michael Andrews (Italy)
Jonathon Colman (US)
Marit Letnes (Norway)
Hilary Marsh (US)
Natalie Shaw (UK)
Lisa Trager (US)

We hope to see you all back into the swing of it here too!

"Future-friendly content"?

Maybe we need a style guide for avoiding hyphenated adjectives as the actual term?

To obvious. Includes "SEO" too.

LoCS terms are low priority for now.

Someone originally proposed this as "repurposing of content". (Maybe @vinishgarg?)

That term wouldn't work as is, but 'content repurposing', or even 'repurposing', as I've made this term issue for, would be feasible name forms to use.

Question is, what does it mean? ;)

This was originally proposed for dropping by @vinishgarg . I second the motion. If we get a third, this becomes a dropped term.

Before this can be considered as a glossary entry, we have to decide which is the version that would be considered, the acronym or the actual written expression — Create Once, Publish Everywhere.

If we treat consistently under the current approach — acronyms being handled as synonymous entries to the primary entry — then the primary entry would be 'Create Once, Publish Everywhere' and 'COPE' would be a synonymous redirect entry. Then the discussion is framed correctly. Do we include 'Create Once, Publish Everywhere' as a primary entry or not?

My opinion is we do not, because it is too similar to the idea of 'omnichannel', which is already an entry. So maybe 'COPE' and 'Create Once, Publish Everywhere' are treated as synonym entries that redirect to omnichannel and they are briefly explained there in that definition as a synonymous idea?

I'm porting this term from old register. I don't know who proposed it.

But I would want to know what the idea behind this term was... Is it similar to a 'content lifecycle'? Or similar to an 'editorial workflow'? Are all these terms synonymous? If so, which one is considered the primary entry?

Needs discussion.

I propose this term is dropped from glossary. It's too obvious in meaning and thus unnecessary. It's also a bit antiquated, though that's probably a matter of opinion.

Transferring this from old register. This is an LoCS term. Do not remove the LoCS label.

See issue #44 , which seems synonymous.

Could feasibly be added.

I've drafted the initial wiki doc that will effectively make non-GitHub users trip over themselves to sign up: Getting started with GitHub.

The one blank section still is the one for pull requests. I'm no GitHub master, and I've never done a pull-request before. If it intimidates me, it's certainly going to intimidate anyone thinking about signing up to contribute a little writing.

I'm not even sure if we need to make people do pull requests for our humble needs. I need some clarity on the issue if anyone with knowledge wants to give me 10 minutes.

I propose to drop this one because it's superseded by "omnichannel", which Urbina makes a good case for (link below). We can use this term as an synonymous term, however, which redirects to the omnichannel entry.

References

• http://www.intelligentcontentconference.com/5-ws-adaptive-content/

I realize that content is within the scope of making a good customer experience, but as a baseline term for talking about content, this seems outside the scope of a "core set" of terms.

See similar issues as with #15 .

And @vinishgarg says:

I don't find "artifact" as too different from "assets" (for the purpose of this glossary) and I do not think it makes the cut. Let others chime in.

Porting over from the old register. Draft copy started here...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1djTRrY8gehifBAr3yAnrl4UCVxAMuMYmn0dPuiWlNxY/edit

The definition article has been started. Currently the primary term is being used to account for all types of interface text (i.e. 'UI text') — what different people would call microcopy and UI strings, for example.

However, this bulk lumping of all types of interface text together may not be warranted. A recent article from the NN/g uses the term microcopy (accessed 3 Feb 2017), but it appears to not include shorter strings like nav menu items, form legends, button labels, and so forth.

Thus for purposes of this glossary, it might be an opportunity to have two different main glossary terms: one being microcopy as NN/g defines it, and another (of yet-determined choice) to account for the specific words in navigation, forms, and whatever else the distinction is.

Alternatively, we stick to a single main glossary entry as originally planned (with the synonym redirects to the main entry) and clarify the potential distinction as part of the single definition.

Thoughts?

I'm transferring this over from the register. I don't know who proposed it.

This is an interesting term because, on one hand, if we choose to add a definition for this, then we're somewhat obligated to define 'content strategy' too, and any other content related field by extension. That doesn't seem practical to me.

On the other hand, it's an interesting term, because it clearly suggests a sub-set of skills and focus, and that could be in the realm of defining for practical value. It also opens up the question: What other subsets of content strategy might there be? Hmmm?

The 'drafts' branch will be the new staging branch for draft file content development collaborating between writers and editors.

The master branch will then become a final (technical) production branch -- the files in this branch will be full HTML 5 documents and website ready.

We will build a Jekyll site that's powered by the master branch so there's no manual porting of production files to an external CMS.

This draft is nearly ready for technical editing. I think there's one contributing writer missing, so I'll try to track down who that is, if anyone.

Too general.

@vinishgarg originally proposed to drop this term. I second the motion. It shouldn't even need a third motion. The word is too general and obvious to be relevant here. It doesn't need to be defined.

How you define audiences in a specific situation is another story, perhaps, but that would require a different term of some kind.

What about target audience? That's more specific and definitely in the realm of talking about content, but is it still to obvious? Does that really need to be defined?

This is a LoCS term. Don't remove that label.

Michael Andrews said:

Buzz word? Maybe reconsider as "future-friendly"

Too general.

I don't know who proposed this term originally. I'm just porting it over from the old register.

But I don't see what the word "matter" adds to this term label... Why not just 'subject expert'? Someone is either knowledgable of a subject or they are not — 'matter' matters not.

That said, it seems to me this is too obvious of a term to even bother defining. I propose we drop it.

This term is listed as a target term, but it seem a little too vague for a primary content term; not enough affinity to "content". It could be any kind of deliverable, not just something content-oriented. Should the term be changed to "content deliverable"? That doesn't seem much better.

And an term issue needs started for "artifact" in relation, which has the same kind of vague problem, probably.

I'm proposing this term in place of a different one proposed by Lisa Trager, 'adaptive web design'. I feel the latter term (AWD) was beyond scope. By changing the label to 'adaptive content', we have something to consider more feasibly.

No fields of study terms. This would Include information architecture, content marketing, information design, technical communication, interaction design, etc.

I propose we change this term label to Content accessibility to be more specific about the type of accessibility we mean (e.g. content accessibility vs. wheelchair accessibility). This would also distinguish it a bit from the LoCS, thus we could consider our term a non-equivalent, exactly, and remove it from the overlapping terms list.

I would also propose using a limited number of examples in the definition (3 max) concerned with text, images, videos, and/or audio and not any concerning presentational aspects alone (e.g. color contrast).

References

In addition to the LoCS page as 1 reference (of the minimum 2 needed), another should be a source for web accessibility, and their are many standards bodies on this subject. Any other sources that focus on a given example used would be desirable too.

This was originally proposed for dropping by @vinishgarg . I second the motion. This shouldn't even need a third motion because the term is too non-descript in relation to content. A lot of things can be minimalist, and for the most part they all concern design, the visual aspects. Sure, content can be visual too — size, color, typeface, layout... but that's more design thinking. I'd argue minimalism is better suited to a UX design glossary, not this one. There would certainly be overlapping terms between the two glossaries, but this term wouldn't be one of them.

Furthermore, it's too general of a term as is. If someone wanted to argue adding this, what would be a more content-specific way of saying it? Minimal content? Sounds like a word count. Content minimalism? Just sounds like good, clear, concise writing.