Lunch for Cannibals

First of all, for the benefit of other web professionals, can I point out that when I refer to the web (now) I am talking 'web 2.0'. Like it or hate it, the term has become ingrained in our consciousness and would be impossible to dispense with now. I won't debate heuristics here, suffice to say that anyone who needs to brand the web with a version number probably has their head firmly in the world of software. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't presume to suggest that this is a bad thing, merely that there are two sides to every argument.

I read an article recently, which referred to the web (now) as a technology platform, which empowered its users to 'socially interact'. The single most memorable quote described it as being 'made of people'. I'm not sure about you, but to me this could just as easily define a football team, a crowd of shoppers or a cannibal’s lunch. As a concept, it's far too high level to be of any use to anyone trying to produce effective web-based media. Also, it is technology led. That is, the technology is central to, and leads, the development process. We're not thinking about who is going to use this 'system' or why? Development typically begins with a long list of features and functionality, with no focus on what specific needs we are trying to address.

More often than not this type of development depends on creating a menu of features that enable open-ended exploration, i.e. what happens next is down to the end user. In some cases, this is an entirely correct approach (take Facebook and the explosion of blogging as successful applications). However, we've also seen a plethora of other sites which failed to find an application for their chosen technology solution. These sites are typified by useless ‘widgets’, which might excite initial interest but fail to build traffic via repeat visitors and word of mouth. The fact that all technology is vulnerable to the march of time should also be taken into consideration. If our fantastic 'new' website is built along these lines and the technology becomes outmoded then we have lost our raison d'etre and can only watch as traffic declines and our 'cool' new site slips further into Google's black hole.

Don't get me wrong. It would be ridiculous of me as a developer to suggest that projects should never be technologically led and I'm also not suggesting that all projects should involve hugely time consuming user research. What I am constantly surprised by though is the way that many projects are sold on the basis of a collection of technology related buzzwords - or one 'cool' concept. Surely we need to think about our clients user group at some point in the process. Even the needs of our clients as users (of content management systems, etc.) should be subservient to the needs of their end users (or customers and clients). In short, most end users don't care about the technology, or the intrinsic value of the site, they care about the quality of their experience and finding the 'stuff' they want. We can't begin to address these issues without having given some thought to who they are and what a quality web experience means to them.

The focus needs to be on finding innovative solutions to communications problems rather than allowing our solutions to be led by any particular technology. Our output should be based on intelligent responses to real needs. Approaching things from this angle should result in media and systems that are 'fit for purpose' and, as a result, represent much better value for money. As the financial climate becomes more uncertain, this type of approach should become even more relevant.

Of course, we all have to live in the real world where budgets and timescales often conspire against this type of researched approach. However, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. A simple, scalable methodology is all that’s required to yield significant added value for both our clients and our clients' clients.