The trouble with this approach is that it doesn’t address perhaps the most obvious quality engaging content has – the thing that makes it engaging in the first place. Change.

In fact this is what people are doing when they engage with it. They’re not just passively consuming it – they’re assimilating it, responding to it and in the process they’re mutating it into something else. It’s this quality that most Internet success stories either have engineered into them, or possess by accident.

The sheer ever-increasing weight of content itself is one of the drivers for this. Internet content is self-perpetuating. There’s now so much content out there, and easier and easier ways for any person to create it, that there’s a hunger for meta-content to make some sense of it. In other words, content begets content and so we look for some way to impose order. It is in our nature to look for patterns, to group, list and order things and in doing so we change those things, adding to the total sum of everything.

Engaging content changes what already exists and tells us something new. How? OK, 3 examples: Linkfluence, Pinterest and Change.org.

Linkfluence

Linkfluence is a French start-up that develops analytics solutions for the social web. I came across it in an article on the Guardian that used its information visualisation tool to produce a map of the websites cited in the link-filled manifesto of Anders Breivik. The interactive map categorises the political make-up of the websites that he cites and shows the relationships between them.

It illustrates how he has woven many mainstream and opposing extremist sources of material into a world view that he claims led him to commit the atrocity. It’s a dizzying glimpse into a twisted conspiracist mind. The content is all out there, some of it mainstream and moderate, and Breivik trawled through it to make his own warped connections.

Linkfluence allows us to either drill into the detail or step back and see the bigger picture – to examine existing content in a new light, to look at the reach and comparative influence of ideas. The hyperlinks that connect pieces of content are generally viewed as just the bits of infrastructure that allow users to go on a journey however random or rambling. They’re only apparent at the page-level. But by elevating them away from the content they represent, Linkfluence has given us something new – the underlying structure of content, one that pulses as that content changes over time.

Pinterest

Pinterest, for those who haven’t heard of it, is effectively an online community that gives people a simple moodboard tool to create and share their interests visually. The basic building blocks of the site’s content are images that already exist. Of course, you can upload your own images too but it’s distinct from say, Flickr or Instagram, in that its focus is in organising images (new or existing) to express a personal taste.

The fun is in the collection as much as it is in the individual images that make up the collection. People who love 70s disco record covers or Swedish furniture design or the Muppets can set up a pinboard and navigate the web in search of the images that best represent their love. Curation is the key. One interesting aspect of the community is that the choice of pinboard is a form of self-expression in itself, whether narrow like ‘Cows’ or wide like ‘Beauty’ or simply ‘Things I love’.

From a UX perspective, we might examine the phenomenal success of a site like Pinterest by dwelling on the clever functionality that allows you to gather the images that speak to you on your web wanderings, or perhaps the way images can be re-used (or repined) in a different pinboard. Many of the standard functions of such communities are here: followers, repins, comments from admirers, and these functions allow the establishment of trends so that popular pinboards can rise to the attention of the masses. But at the most fundamental level, Pinterest is engaging to the people who love it because it allows them to make sense of what’s out there – to create a garden in the jungle, to shape the bewildering abundance of content in a way that pleases them.

Change.org

Change.org is an online campaigning platform that allows people to create and sign petitions. It has helped put the spotlight onto causes that have otherwise been ignored through more official channels. After the unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin was shot dead in February in Florida by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighbourhood watch leader, no prosecution followed. Martin’s parents used Change.org to launch a petition to appeal for judicial action. The petition subsequently went global, attracting 2.2 million signatures. Zimmerman has now been charged with second-degree murder.

Ben Rattray, the founder of Change.org, stumbled on the key to success only after earlier incarnations of blogging sites had failed. He realised that the petitions posted by some bloggers to add to their campaign were more popular and influential than the actual blogs.

So petitions trump blogs. The question is why? Blogs can become enormously successful, but they’re still just largely static pieces of content that others may consume or comment on or tweet about. The fact that ten thousand people read a blog is a testament to that blog’s popularity. But it’s not as powerful as ten thousand people reading a similar piece of content and deciding to act on it, to pool their opinions.

The thing is, because Change.org has had on the face of it some effect by bringing causes to the fore, users know that their online signature has the potential to make a difference. That’s why the content on Change.org is engaging. The site makes it clear that sometimes a petition results in a victory. It’s compelling because there are no barriers to starting a petition, and when you do, you can monitor its progress and how it stacks up against the most popular petitions in a kind of survival of the fittest. In other words, the petition can change – it can go from a ripple to a tidal wave, and petition-signers can derive satisfaction from having been a part of that.

There’s an immediate sense that the site is dynamic – that spending effort on this site will result in something actually happening in the real world. For example, the atlas graphic on the homepage that highlights whenever anyone around the world has signed a petition. Actually, which petition they’ve signed is beside the point, at least on this level because it demonstrates that the site is actively elevating causes that might have been buried in obscurity. The graphic is saying: ‘If you create a petition here it will be seen by a multitude of like-minded people.’ And it’s also saying: ‘Signatures are arriving like raindrops every instant – change is incremental but over time it’ll build up.’

What can be done to make content more engaging?

I think the writing is on the wall for static content. Content has a greater chance of becoming engaging if it can be changed by the intervention of users. It’s up to designers to facilitate that change – to provide the means for it. It’s also up to designers to collate the changed content and present it in such a way as to promote its fluid nature.

Then it’s up to users to do what they do best. Engage…

Anyway it’s hard not to be swept up in the whole hype of it all. You could watch it just for the way the coaches react as their protégées nail that 17-second high note. And I have to admit I got a bit emotional in that sitting-on-a-sofa-with-a-glass-of-wine way when 20-year-old Ruth Brown sang the Oleta Adams song Get Here – so I thought I’d vote for her.

Which is when all the good will and warm feelings died.

The user experience problem - an unexpected user type?

It was a snap decision – I wasn’t expecting to vote or anything, so I missed the numbers on the screen as I was digging out my phone.

No problem. I go straight to the bbc.co.uk/thevoice website on my phone as I’ve been urged to do by the ever likeable Reggie Yates. But… There’s nothing on the page about voting. Must be some mistake. I mean voting lines are only open for half an hour, surely they’d be geared up for this?

Ah, wait a minute, there’s a nice big ‘Vote now’ button. Click that a couple of times before realising the ‘vote now’ is for saying how you’ll be watching the live shows:

• Viewing party with all my mates
• On my own – I CANNOT be distracted
• Cuddling up with my boyfriend/girlfriend/pet
• In the audience

There doesn’t seem to be an option for ‘Shouting at the telly in disbelief’. OK, getting a bit annoyed now. It must be on here somewhere.

Find a FAQ page about voting – great… Short vid from Reggie about how I must call the short mobile codes NOT TEXT them. OK, cool, I’ve got the first bit I have to dial: 62131, now dial the number relating to Ruth Brown. But there’s nothing about which number relates to each artist. Just reams and reams of text about why Mobile Short Dial Codes (MSDCs) don’t work on VOIP connections.

So, time is ticking away. I know, Ruth Brown was last to perform so all I need to do is work out how many performances there were tonight and I can deduce the number. How many were there? I missed the beginning… But surely that info is on here somewhere – I mean a line-up of the artists on today’s show, that’s basic, right? OK, list of artists, who’ve been eliminated so far… Nothing about today’s show. I mean, absolutely zilch.

Mobile vs Desktop vs Cross-channel

I decide to abandon the smartphone and go to the desktop to see if I’m going mad. My wife says, ‘It’s all right, Ruth Brown’s going to get through. She doesn’t need your vote that badly. But I’ve already put in so much effort! And anyway that’s not the point. I want to exercise my voting rights, to feel involved… I haven’t got that excited about the London Mayoral elections but then I don’t like any of the candidates… I don’t want to give up. If I guess the total number of contestants that’d do it. But what if I end up voting for the one before Ruth that I didn’t like? I could over-estimate the number of contestants and work back on the assumption that I won’t get charged for voting for acts that don’t exist. I feel like trying to find the information on the web at large – surely I’m not the only one going through this pain.

I feel stupid. Even though I know that this is what users always feel when they can’t do something on a website. It’s what nervous participants say when we conduct usability testing sessions with them – ‘It must be my fault. I’m not very good with websites, you know.’ And we always say, ‘It’s not your fault, it’s the way the website has been built – without meeting your needs.’ And that’s true. It isn’t my fault. It’s the fault of whoever designed this whole voting experience, if ‘designed’ is actually the right word. But that doesn’t make me feel any better.

I’m sure there were thousands, perhaps millions of people who managed to cast their vote without hitch. People who had their phones primed and ready. But I can’t help thinking I wasn’t the only one who tried and failed. What does it matter? Not much in the grand scheme of things. I suppose the BBC, not being commercially driven, won’t miss the odd bit of vote revenue – 25p a vote with 10p going to the BBC Performing Arts Fund. Maybe there’s even some arcane 20th Century BBC Charter reason about not promoting vote lines on the web. I don’t like to think that it might be because they forgot, or they didn’t think of it.

The next day, I tried to view show clips on my mobile, but after tracking the content down and even pressing ‘play’, the site informed me I couldn’t watch the clips on a mobile device. It told me to go to the desktop instead. So it makes me think that none of this is joined up in anything like a multi-channel way. Which is somewhat disappointing.

Anyway, you’ll be relieved to hear it hasn’t knocked the shine off the show for me. I’ll be tuning in next week. I might even vote, now I know the numbers will be up on the screen for a fleeting moment or two.

And Ruth Brown did make it. My vote wasn’t crucial.

If you want to know what all the fuss is about – check this out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00rtlrn

Have you ever experienced this type of let down? When basic information or functions that you just expect to be there have simply been left out? Let us know your thoughts!

Our business development manager took on the challenge to pull together a view of how the user experience industry is involved in social media analysis at the moment, and explore where we think this relationship should or will be going in the future. The slides are below for your perusal but we’re really interested to know what you think about the use of social media insight in the user experience industry so let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

Was it worth it?

Yes, definitely. Aligning your digital customer experience with your brand aspirations is imperative for all businesses to succeed.

Top tips for marketing managers to get it right

• Remember who your customers are - don’t make your site around your internal organisation. If in doubt, get a customer experience agency in (like us) to help you separate your internal perceptions from your real customer needs to deliver on both your business and client requirements
• Use professionals - your site will be better and quicker but keep your eye on the ball at all times to make sure it all comes together
• Have a vision, business objectives and strong brand strategy - you will doubt yourself at some point and going back to the purpose, be it the business goals, customer needs or brand vision, it is very useful to keep you on track. Especially when all those internal opinions start bouncing around
• Planning and lists - have a plan to work to, you will need more time than you t
  hink but it’ll be a good driving force, and have rolling to do lists for you, your designer, and your developer to keep on top of things. (Especially towards the end when it’s all about the finishing touches)
• Get it live with a fix it list after - it’ll never be perfect so don’t stress about that. Get it live and with the things you know you want to do next in a prioritised list. Then ask for your customers honest feedback on the live site, then put a plan together to get the updates implemented!

What’s next?

It doesn’t stop here. Great branding means having a consistent and appropriate customer experience across all brand touchpoints. We will be updating our brochures, advertising, business cards, etc. and office environment to make sure that you get that Webcredible feeling where ever you interact with us. We will be reviewing and updating all of our other digital platforms too (like mobile website and social platforms). One other thing to remember about this… it all takes a bit of time.

What do you think?

All it leaves me to do now is to ask you all for your feedback! So, what do you think of our new site?

We have a ‘next steps’ to do list for our website so if there is anything that you think we need to do to improve our new website or things you love that you wouldn’t want us to change in the design then please, let us know in the comments below!