A Content Model Is Not a Design System

Do you recall the days gone by when having a successful site was sufficient? Nowadays, people are getting answers from Siri, Google seek fragments, and mobile applications, not only our websites. Forward-thinking companies have adopted an holistic information strategy whose goal is to reach audiences across a variety of digital channels and platforms.

But how can a content management system ( CMS ) be set up to reach your current and future audience? I learned the hard way that creating a content model—a concept of information types, attributes, and relationships that let people and systems understand content—with my more comfortable design-system wondering would collapse my patient’s holistic information strategy. By developing willing versions that are conceptual and that also connect related information, you can avoid that result.

A Fortune 500 company recently tapped me to guide the CMS application. The customer was excited by the benefits of an holistic information plan, including material modify, multichannel marketing, and robot delivery—designing content to be comprehensible to bots, Google knowledge panels, snippets, and voice user interfaces.

A content type is essential to an holistic content strategy, and it required conceptual types to be given names that don’t depend on how the content is presented. Our aim was to allow writers to produce original content and use it where necessary. However, as the project progressed, I realized that the entire group had to be aware of a new design in order to support material reuse at the level that my customer needed.

Despite our best purposes, we kept drawing from what we were more common with: design techniques. Unlike web-focused information strategies, an holistic information strategy doesn’t rely on WYSIWYG equipment for design and structure. Our inclination to approach the material model using our well-known design-system thinking consistently stifled our attention from one of the main objectives of a willing model: delivering content to audiences across multiple marketing channels.

Two fundamental tenets are necessary for a successful information type

We needed to explain to our designers, developers, and stakeholders that we were doing something completely different from their previous internet projects, where everyone assumed that content would fit into layouts as physical building blocks. Because it made the layouts feel more recognizable, the previous approach was more intuitive, at first, at least initially. We learned two guiding principles that helped the team comprehend how a willing model and the design processes we were familiar with were:

Instead of structure, vocabulary must be used by content versions.
And glad models should connect elements that belong together.

Lexical material models

Type and attribute names for semantic articles models are used to represent the content’s intended purpose and not its intended display. For instance, in a nonsemantic design, groups may produce varieties like teasers, press blocks, and cards. These types may simplify the presentation of material, but they do not aid in understanding the meaning of the articles, which would have opened the door to the articles presented in each marketing channel. To allow each distribution channel to comprehend the information and use it as it sees fit, a conceptual content type uses kind names like product, service, and testimonial.

A great place to start when creating a conceptual content concept is by reviewing the types and qualities that Schema has defined. nonprofit, a community-driven source for type meanings that are comprehensible to platforms like Google search.

A semantic information model has many advantages:

A semantic content model also gives you a competitive advantage. by including schema-based structured data. org’s types and properties, a website can provide hints to help Google understand the content, display it in search snippets or knowledge panels, and use it to answer voice-interface user questions. Potential customers could access your content without ever visiting your website.
Beyond those real-world advantages, you’ll also require a semantic content model if you want to deliver omnichannel content. Delivery channels must be able to understand the same content in order to use it across multiple marketing channels. For instance, if your content model provided a list of questions and answers, it could be easily displayed on a frequently asked questions ( FAQ ) page as well as be used by a bot to answer frequently asked questions.

For example, using a semantic content model for articles, events, people, and locations lets A List Apart provide cleanly structured data for search engines so that users can read the content on the website, in Google knowledge panels, and even with hypothetical voice interfaces in the future.

Content models that connect

Instead of slicing up related content across disparate content components, I’ve come to the realization that the best models are those that are semantic and also connect related content components ( such as a FAQ item’s question and answer pair ). Content that needs to be reused by multiple delivery channels can be connected to each other without having to assemble those pieces again in a good content model.

Write an essay or article about it. An article’s meaning and usefulness depends upon its parts being kept together. Would one of the headings or paragraphs have any significance on their own if the entire article were not included? Our well-versed in designing systems frequently led us to want to develop content models that would break content into smaller pieces to fit the web-centric layout. Similar effects could have been felt to an article that had its headline removed. Because we were dividing content into separate pieces based on layout, content that belonged together became challenging to manage and nearly impossible for multiple delivery channels to comprehend.

To illustrate, let’s look at how connecting related content applies in a real-world scenario. The client’s design team created a challenging layout for a software product page that included numerous tabs and sections. Our innate preferences were to follow the content model. Shouldn’t we make adding any number of tabs in the future as simple and flexible as possible?

Because our design-system instincts were so well-known, it appeared that we needed a “tab section” content type so that multiple tab sections could be added to a page. Each tab section would display a variety of content. One tab might provide the software’s overview or its specifications. Another tab might provide a list of resources.

Our tendency to divide the content model into “tab section” pieces would have resulted in a cumbersome editing process and an unnecessary complexity of the model, as well as content that wasn’t understandable by other delivery channels. How would a different system have been able to determine which “tab section” referred to a product’s specifications or resource list, for instance? Would that system have had to have used tab sections and content blocks to calculate this? This would have prevented the tabs from ever being rearranged, and it would have required adding logic to each other delivery channel to interpret the layout of the design system. Additionally, it would have been difficult to migrate to a new content model in response to the new page redesign if the customer had decided against displaying this content in a tab layout.

We had a breakthrough when we discovered that our customer had a specific purpose in mind for each tab: it would reveal specific information such as the software product’s overview, specifications, related resources, and pricing. Our desire to concentrate on what was visually and historically significant had obscured the purpose of the designs once implementation began. With a little digging, it didn’t take long to realize that the concept of tabs wasn’t relevant to the content model. What was important was the meaning of the information that was intended to be displayed in the tabs.

In fact, the customer could have chosen to display this content elsewhere in a different manner, without tabs. In response to this realization, we created content types for the software product based on the meaningful attributes the client wanted to display on the web. There were obvious semantic attributes like name and description as well as rich attributes like screenshots, software requirements, and feature lists. The software’s product information stayed together because it wasn’t sliced across separate components like “tab sections” that were derived from the content’s presentation. Any delivery channel—including future ones—could understand and present this content.

Conclusion

In this omnichannel marketing project, we discovered that the best way to maintain the content model’s semantic consistency was by ensuring that it was semantic ( with type and attribute names that reflected the content’s meaning ) and that it maintained content that belonged together ( as opposed to fragmenting it ). These two ideas made it easier for us to shape the content model based on the design. Remember: If you’re developing a content model to support an omnichannel content strategy, or even if you just want to make sure Google and other interfaces understand your content, keep in mind:

A design system isn’t a content model. You should maintain the semantic value and contextual structure of the content strategy throughout the entire implementation process because team members might be tempted to combine them and to make your content model resemble your design system. This will enable each delivery channel to consume the content without the need for a magic decoder ring.
If your team is having trouble making this transition, Schema can still offer some of the advantages. org–based structured data in your website. The benefit of search engine optimization is a compelling reason on its own, even if additional delivery channels aren’t on the horizon in the near future.
Remind the team that removing the content model from the design will allow them to update the designs more quickly because content migration costs won’t be prohibitive. They will be prepared for the upcoming big thing, and they will be able to create new designs without compromising the compatibility between the content and the design.

By firmly defending these ideas, you’ll help your team view content as the most important component of your user experience and as the most effective way to engage with your audience.