Ten years ago, a general view of local governments' websites was bigger is better. "We've only got 2,000 pages on our site; you've got 5,000? Brilliant!", I remember conversations at conferences going.
Today however it's widely accepted that some local government's websites are almost impenetrable fortresses of content, not just through incomprehensible language but because of the sheer number of pages one has to sift through to find pertinent information.
The LocalGov Digital Content Standards seek to help put this right, and these days participants in unconference conversations are more likely to take the view that it's better to have the minimum number of pages needed to do the task of delivering information and services.
So what's this change in best practice for local governments' websites got to do with the number of visits?
Most local governments now have some sort of Channel Shift programme in place, which seeks to direct as many users as possible often to "the council website". Back in 2011 I wrote about how councils having one website to do everything was an outdated concept, but this isn't what this piece is about.
Channel Shift is a good thing, but in ten years time I predict that, just like the change in thinking about content, we'll be praising those who have lowered visitor numbers to their website. Sounds pretty bonkers, right?
Most forward thinking digital services or web teams are also looking at user journeys through their sites, and as well as reducing the number of pages, they're making it easier to navigate around to find relevant information. It's well known that people will most likely start their journey by using a search engine or someone else's site so shouldn't the improvement of a user journey include this too and not just through Search Engine Optimisation of one's content?
I'll show you what I mean. Let's say someone wants to find out when the council offices in Newbury are open, so as most would, they go to Google and search. If you do this. you should be able to see that on the right hand side, all the basic information about this council building is shown.
By putting microdata in website pages you're telling search engines (and other sites that can read it) what's on the page. What this means is, it's saved the person having to visit this council's website find what they're looking for. Their user journey has been reduced, and as a result they're likely to be happier.
So this is great for basic stuff, but won't the user still have to visit the council's sites for other things? Of course, but there's a wide range of hierarchies for content so you can extend this to information about pretty much any person, location, physical service or object.
By getting cleverer with your content and doing the hard work to make it simple you'll reduce the number of clicks it takes to find your information and in some cases people won't even have to touch your site, to see your content.
So there it is, reduce visits to your website by making your content more intelligent, which will please more people. Channel Shift is a good thing, but of those people have shifted to the internet, don't assume they should always shift to your website. Not so bonkers after all, perhaps, you can be the judge of that. What do you think?
Today however it's widely accepted that some local government's websites are almost impenetrable fortresses of content, not just through incomprehensible language but because of the sheer number of pages one has to sift through to find pertinent information.
The LocalGov Digital Content Standards seek to help put this right, and these days participants in unconference conversations are more likely to take the view that it's better to have the minimum number of pages needed to do the task of delivering information and services.
So what's this change in best practice for local governments' websites got to do with the number of visits?
Most local governments now have some sort of Channel Shift programme in place, which seeks to direct as many users as possible often to "the council website". Back in 2011 I wrote about how councils having one website to do everything was an outdated concept, but this isn't what this piece is about.
Channel Shift is a good thing, but in ten years time I predict that, just like the change in thinking about content, we'll be praising those who have lowered visitor numbers to their website. Sounds pretty bonkers, right?
Most forward thinking digital services or web teams are also looking at user journeys through their sites, and as well as reducing the number of pages, they're making it easier to navigate around to find relevant information. It's well known that people will most likely start their journey by using a search engine or someone else's site so shouldn't the improvement of a user journey include this too and not just through Search Engine Optimisation of one's content?
I'll show you what I mean. Let's say someone wants to find out when the council offices in Newbury are open, so as most would, they go to Google and search. If you do this. you should be able to see that on the right hand side, all the basic information about this council building is shown.
By putting microdata in website pages you're telling search engines (and other sites that can read it) what's on the page. What this means is, it's saved the person having to visit this council's website find what they're looking for. Their user journey has been reduced, and as a result they're likely to be happier.
So this is great for basic stuff, but won't the user still have to visit the council's sites for other things? Of course, but there's a wide range of hierarchies for content so you can extend this to information about pretty much any person, location, physical service or object.
By getting cleverer with your content and doing the hard work to make it simple you'll reduce the number of clicks it takes to find your information and in some cases people won't even have to touch your site, to see your content.
So there it is, reduce visits to your website by making your content more intelligent, which will please more people. Channel Shift is a good thing, but of those people have shifted to the internet, don't assume they should always shift to your website. Not so bonkers after all, perhaps, you can be the judge of that. What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment