Well, first of all there are a few words of encouragement to your team that I want to offer, because I have the sense that you may feel somewhat demoralized after last night.
- Multiple language sites are very difficult to figure out. It truly is a bear of a problem, and I appreciate the fact that you made a sincere attempt to address it. You missed an important UN standard (equal representation of languages) in your research on the constraints of the organization, but it's ab very particular problem that nobody else will have to face. Your solutions weren't necessarily incorrect for all cases (they were perfectly reasonable) -- they just happen to be wrong for this client
- presenting to a difficult client and having to justify your ideas is stressful and often frustrating. That said, try to see this as a very valuable life experience -- the kind of interaction you will have many more times if you are in this field as a professional. That said, it should be recognized that you had to deal with an added layer of pressure to which the other groups will not be subjected.
On the whole, you guys did an impressive amount of work and there were some really good elements to what you presented. I'll try to briefly summarize what I saw as the strengths and weaknesses of the presentation here.
I thought it was very good that you took advantage of the meeting to do some market research and I was impressed that you created a survey and really thought through how you might pose questions to your stakeholders. I was disappointed though that I couldn't here some more detail about the user personas that came out of that process and thought that the 'audiences' that you outlined were not always audiences so much as groups or types of people. So more detail and specificity here would have helped.
I thought your re-work of the site-map/information architecture was excellent, and one of the big strengths of the presentation.
I thought your home page wire-frame was also excellent. I loved the information hierarchy and the use of big, highly visible action items (buttons) for donating etc.
I want to say that the suggestion that they have a high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth web site is pretty unrealistic, given that they already have to manage 4 sites for the different languages (this would effectively double that number) Similar, but better would be to suggest an altogether low-bandwidth-friendly site, which includes progressive enhancement of the content (through the use of video, animation, etc) whenever that is appropriate.
The biggest weakness in your presentation was that I thought you really tried to add too many things to their already understaffed operation. It seemed like you were suggesting everything but the kitchen sink as far as social media (facebook, blogs, a wiki(!) etc. etc.) I think for an organization that has blatant content management problems, partly related to their internationalization needs, adding new streams of conten to manage would be a counter-intuitive suggestion. The idea that they might be managed by stakeholders in the UNANIMA network seems implausible to me, but also really creates an even bigger content management headache for the people who are ultimately answerable for the content of the site.
That's all I have for now. Congratulations on getting to the finish line and gracefully handling a pretty challenging situation and project.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Further thoughts on last night's Lend-a-Hand India presentation
I jotted down a few notes during the Lend-a-Hand India presentation that I wanted to share. Overall, it was effective. I particularly liked the way the team trimmed down the nine+ menu items to just five. That seemingly simple change made the site seem a lot less daunting.
But I thought the team's topline recommendations could have gone even further. Specifically:
1) The presentation of the three personas was useful. I got a good sense of Lend-a-Hand's three main audiences, both actual and aspirational. At no point during the presentation, though, did I become clear on what the site can (or should) offer each of these groups. A map showing content types for each of the five main sections would have helped. For instance, what would press get out of visiting this site? If Lend-a-Hand really wants to target journalists, then perhaps they need to develop some press-friendly contents--e.g., photo library, background briefings on poverty in India, interviews w/ leading development economists, reviews of Slumdog Millionaire by Indian youth... Also, what's in this site for donors? As our two judges hinted, Lend-a-Hand should be taken to task for not doing more to highlight their on-the-ground work and local partners. One obvious way for them to go would be to adapt the Kiva approach to their needs.
2) Like Craig Zheng, I liked the fact that the team's mock-up for the Home Page urges visitors to "Donate Now" and "Take Action." That said, "Take Action" is vague. Maybe "Get Involved with Us," with two sub-categories: "Donate" and "Volunteer"?
3) Also on the team's proposed new Home Page: I kept thinking that some of the language was clunky. Maybe you could play with the organization's name more: e.g., "How can you lend a hand?" Also, the logo, showing people holding hands, is quite clever. Could the photos on the Home Page echo that somehow--close-ups of people's hands or some such? It would help to reinforce the message...
4) Also, the branding doesn't convey the message that the organization is focused on India, apart from the name. The tagline, "Making a difference in the lives of the poor through self-help," could apply to many groups. How to bring in India more prominently--would a map visual help?
5) The team mentioned several times Lend-a-Hand's attachment to its video. That's all well and good, but what do others make of it? Are the contents good enough to inspire people to donate to, volunteer for, or write about Lend-a-Hand's work? If not, how might the contents be improved? To get maximum mileage out of the video, the audience question needs to be tackled. Also, and as Constance said, the team should consider whether other kinds of multimedia--e.g., a slideshow of photos taken in the field--could be just as (if not more) effective.
6) During the presentation, I was taking two, somewhat contradictory impressions of Lend-a-Hand's work: on the one hand, it runs high-profile fundraising events in NYC that staff members could be blogging/twittering about; on the other, there are all these poor young people in India they're trying to help. This puts in mind Kipling's "the white man's burden"--but is that Lend-a-Hand's intent? I don't think so. Still, it's hard to reconcile the image of chocolate tasting at MadamX Lounge in Soho w/ images of India's rural poor. I'm not quite sure how to address, but at the very least, the client should be cautioned about it.
7) Finally, I had a kneejerk reaction to the notion of the site being divided between "static" and other kinds of contents. "Static" has a very special meaning in Web world.
Well, enough of my critique. Time to give a hand to the Lend-a-Hand team!
But I thought the team's topline recommendations could have gone even further. Specifically:
1) The presentation of the three personas was useful. I got a good sense of Lend-a-Hand's three main audiences, both actual and aspirational. At no point during the presentation, though, did I become clear on what the site can (or should) offer each of these groups. A map showing content types for each of the five main sections would have helped. For instance, what would press get out of visiting this site? If Lend-a-Hand really wants to target journalists, then perhaps they need to develop some press-friendly contents--e.g., photo library, background briefings on poverty in India, interviews w/ leading development economists, reviews of Slumdog Millionaire by Indian youth... Also, what's in this site for donors? As our two judges hinted, Lend-a-Hand should be taken to task for not doing more to highlight their on-the-ground work and local partners. One obvious way for them to go would be to adapt the Kiva approach to their needs.
2) Like Craig Zheng, I liked the fact that the team's mock-up for the Home Page urges visitors to "Donate Now" and "Take Action." That said, "Take Action" is vague. Maybe "Get Involved with Us," with two sub-categories: "Donate" and "Volunteer"?
3) Also on the team's proposed new Home Page: I kept thinking that some of the language was clunky. Maybe you could play with the organization's name more: e.g., "How can you lend a hand?" Also, the logo, showing people holding hands, is quite clever. Could the photos on the Home Page echo that somehow--close-ups of people's hands or some such? It would help to reinforce the message...
4) Also, the branding doesn't convey the message that the organization is focused on India, apart from the name. The tagline, "Making a difference in the lives of the poor through self-help," could apply to many groups. How to bring in India more prominently--would a map visual help?
5) The team mentioned several times Lend-a-Hand's attachment to its video. That's all well and good, but what do others make of it? Are the contents good enough to inspire people to donate to, volunteer for, or write about Lend-a-Hand's work? If not, how might the contents be improved? To get maximum mileage out of the video, the audience question needs to be tackled. Also, and as Constance said, the team should consider whether other kinds of multimedia--e.g., a slideshow of photos taken in the field--could be just as (if not more) effective.
6) During the presentation, I was taking two, somewhat contradictory impressions of Lend-a-Hand's work: on the one hand, it runs high-profile fundraising events in NYC that staff members could be blogging/twittering about; on the other, there are all these poor young people in India they're trying to help. This puts in mind Kipling's "the white man's burden"--but is that Lend-a-Hand's intent? I don't think so. Still, it's hard to reconcile the image of chocolate tasting at MadamX Lounge in Soho w/ images of India's rural poor. I'm not quite sure how to address, but at the very least, the client should be cautioned about it.
7) Finally, I had a kneejerk reaction to the notion of the site being divided between "static" and other kinds of contents. "Static" has a very special meaning in Web world.
Well, enough of my critique. Time to give a hand to the Lend-a-Hand team!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)