Content strategy is taking hold across numerous organizations. Bad content is riskier and riskier because of the transparency and accountability in today’s social media–driven world. But now, we have a new problem: a talent deficit in content strategy. Our industry … Continue reading →
This is an interesting article by @sarahokeefe of @scriptorium. She is correct that there are content strategy jobs–I am seeing more of them now than in the past. The deficit of which she speaks is real, though, too. Some of the higher level skills required–like practical experience with DITA–is hard to find. I can write, I have done content management for many years, but I haven’t had to consciously use DITA, even though I know how it’s supposed to work and its purpose. The problem is, as Sarah points out, that many CSs need to learn these higher skills, and employers need to have some willingness to bring on employees who can learn. Um, I’m one of those! I bet many of you are, too.
It makes me wonder, though…do organizations ask too much in finding talented people for a content strategy position? Is there any room for those of us who can be trained further and molded to help? I think that’s the question.
This absolutely appeals to the geek in me, as well as the e-learning/m-learning advocate in me! Woo hoo! (Or should I say, "Who-Who"! No, then I’d sound like an owl.) An app that teaches kids programming with Doctor Who? What could be better?
I think this grown-up will download it, and eventually, I’ll give it a try and learn something in the process. 😀
Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows how much I love Val Swisher of Content Rules.  Why? Well, first of all, she’s a lovely person and great friend all around. But that’s beside the point. As a technical communicator, she is one of the foremost experts on content strategy, specializing in global content strategy.  I’ve seen Val give presentations at various conferences, and the thing I like about her presentations is that while her topics might be high-level topics, someone like me who is still learning can understand what she is talking about.  I never walk away from a Val Swisher presentation without feeling like I absorbed something that I can use in my own work–or at least have a better understanding of how it fits into the content strategy field.  I have often credited Val for providing me with the ideas that have helped me get my current job and make an impact there.
So on that note, I was pleased to see that she had written a book on her specialty called, Global Content Strategy: A Primer, which is available through The Content Wrangler’s Content Strategy Series published by XML Press.  This book is easily read in an afternoon, and is loaded with a lot of information.
If you’ve never had the pleasure of hearing Val’s presentations, then this book is a great way to have many of the concepts she talks about in her presentations found in one place. She provides not only the basics of what global content strategy is, but breaks down bigger ideas into simple terms, and includes color images to provide examples, which is a good move. Val explains that globalization is not just about translating content, but also being sensitive and knowledgeable about localization as well. For example, what works in Portugese in Portugal doesn’t necessarily work for Portugese in Brazil. Translations can’t always be made word for word because of idioms and expressions that aren’t universal. Val provides many examples of this applies not only textually, but in imagery as well.
The book also talks about how the translation process can get complex and bungled without establishing a translation memory database and consistency of terminology. Val provides some pointers to help global strategists wade through these issues to keep it all straight, including what not to do as well as what best practices are.
My only criticism of the book, ironically enough, is that it doesn’t seem to be written for a global audience, but rather for an American–or perhaps North American–audience. There’s nothing wrong with that, but what if I was in another country and looking to create a global strategy? Perhaps it’s because as the Internet has grown, it has seemingly been American English-centric, and by writing for an American audience, Val has written for the group that needs to become more aware of the global audience it needs to reach!
I’ve been a team member on a global web project for the last six months or so, and I remember much of what I learned from Val had taught me to the members of my immediate team that would show that even though we were working on a North American section of a website, we had to find that balance between the global and local content. Sometimes my words were heard, and sometimes it fell on deaf ears. Upon reading this book and revisiting the concepts that I’ve heard her present in the past, I do wish this book had been given to someone at the top of the global team to understand that translation alone is not enough, and that localization makes a big difference. They could’ve used this book as a great reference to better streamline the process and the web project. Many global companies could benefit from reading this book to help put their content in perspective.
If you are looking to acclimate to the concept of global content strategy and what that entails, then this is a great resource for you to read. There are a lot of details squeezed into this slim volume that will be easy to understand, and yet you’ll feel a little overwhelmed at first at how many details one needs to consider when creating a global strategy. Fortunately, this reference book breaks it down so that it isn’t as overwhelming as it could be, and helps content strategists think in a more single-sourced, consistent way to provide the best ROI for a project.
Adam Helweh shared this on Facebook, and now I’m sharing this with you. It looks like an interesting tool for web designers to use that integrates Photoshop and Sketch file in the design. The pricing looks decent, too. I don’t know when I’ll have a chance to give this a try, but it does look interesting. Check it out! (Thanks, Adam!)
This was an interesting article I found on LinkedIn–and I don’t agree with it. The author states, "…working-from-home can stifle the synergy that comes from having a bunch of smart people in the same place together, which in turn can hurt innovation. And that is reason enough to not allow employees to work from home, at least all the time," as the primary reason to discourage telecommuting. My own experience begs to differ.
I’ve worked from home now for just over two years now. Only in the last year was I required to come into the office once a week, versus the once a month that I made a point of doing the first year. The home office is rather far away–during rush hour, it can take about an hour and a half from my house to the office, or vice versa. I don’t feel that my creativity or innovation has been hurt by being at the office. In fact, it’s rare that a trip to the office has offered anything for ME to be innovative. If anything, I’m bringing some innovation to other people. There have been many times that I’ve wondered why the heck I was even in the office other than to make a personal appearance. I actually lose working hours because of the commute to try to beat the traffic and get the commute time down a little bit. Sometimes it can be productive, because I can be in a meeting with a person, and it’s easier to talk about visuals when we don’t have to telecast it via a conferencing app. But it isn’t that often. Those trips I don’t mind, but innovative? No, not for me. I definitely am able to get a lot more done, both creatively and efficiently from home.
There are certainly jobs that do flourish more in the group activity of being in the office. But mine isn’t one of them. And there are a lot of jobs I’ve had where I feel like, yeah, I didn’t need to be in the office to do them, but this was before the advent of telecommuting even existed.
Part of the issue is that employers fail to see telecommuting as a viable and profitable option. It’s not for all jobs, but I’m willing to bet that there are a lot of tech comm jobs that really don’t need to be in the big ol’ office building, at least not on the level I’m at. I’m able to keep up pretty well with conference and regular phone calls, instant messaging, and email just fine, thank you. Heck, in many instances, I have to work that way, even if I was in the office, because I work with people globally–I can’t be in the same room as them as they are in a different country or state! I think the bigger problem is that employers don’t realize how telecommuters CAN bring something innovative to the table. I know I push a lot issues at work about, "Why isn’t this done? Why isn’t that done?" To me, they are valid things that would help with workstreams or innovation, if you want to call it that, but I have no voice. I’m not allowed to have a voice. I’m seen as a worker bee, nothing more. I can contribute to innovation, but you need to be willing to hear me when I say–or write, or instant message–an idea. Just because I’m physically in an office wouldn’t change that–not really.
I’m a huge advocate of telecommuting because for me, there have been more pros than cons. The cons are me having to drive 50 miles away once a week just to sit at a desk and do the same things I do at home. I don’t connect with my group–I’m not even allowed to sit with them, so what’s the point? My manager just feels better if I make an appearance.
Now, this is not to say that if I got a job in the future that was closer to home that I wouldn’t go into the office everyday. Sure, I would! I’d go in. But don’t diss telecommuting. If I could telecommute for the rest of my life, I would. I don’t know if that’s going to be possible, but I’ve liked it much better, and I feel that I’ve grown and been much more productive as a result of being able to do my own thing.
TechCommGeekMom 
You must be logged in to post a comment.