Simply put, I review a LOT of content management systems. So many, in fact, that I often am asked how I manage to stay focused enough to not lose interest in what I do. Let me tell you, it’s not easy. One of the things that I have begun to pay attention to is my initial reactions when I first log into the administration interface for a CMS I’m reviewing. Specifically, I try to pay attention to any feelings that might overtake me as I look at what I’m being presented and, more often than I’d like, one of those feelings is that of being overwhelmed and a feeling of instant frustration. Why? Due to feature overload and duplication.

Let’s explore this shall we?

I had a conversation recently with someone I have developed quite a bit of respect for, a gentleman by the name of Dragan Marjanovic, who resides here in Edmonton and works in the CMS industry. Dragan and I have discovered that we both have similar belief systems when it comes to how a CMS should be designed and developed and we had an interesting conversation about his battle, as a business owner, to steer his developers away from adding multiple methods of accomplishing a single task within his CMS.

The logic, for a developer, is simple. You need a feature, so I added it. Here’s a new button for it. Now it works.

The problem, however, is that developers are technical individuals who have no problem navigating these complex interfaces. They also have no problem with technical manuals and documentation whereas end users nowadays, however, are much less technically inclined. So it then becomes the burden of the “person with the vision” to help simplify and standardize their system so that the experience is a pleasant one for non-technical users. It’s a daunting task for sure.

Why is feature duplication such a bad thing?

Let’s take the ever popular iOS platform for an example.

On your iPad, iPhone or iPod, there is one way to open an app, you click on the square. To close the app, you click on the home button and the app goes away. It’s simple (for some, too simple) but it’s effective and if I was asked to recommend a system to someone who has never used a tablet or smart phone before, i wouldn’t hesitate to point at an Apple device because I know the learning curve is minimal. I can hand one to my grandfather or mother and know that they will get it far faster than if I handed them a device with a hundred ways to do those same tasks. Why? It’s due to the fact that people want to feel that they get it. They don’t want to be overwhelmed with 100 different ways to accomplish something, they want it to work. They want to get the job done and while Apple, for some, might not be their favorite company, you have to give them credit for “getting” how to establish a solid customer experience.

Advertisement

This same logic applies to content management systems. If I log into your system and I see a dashboard that has thousands of links and tabs with dropdowns and buttons everywhere, I tend to get overwhelmed almost immediately  Is it because I don’t think I can use it? No. The chances are, I can figure it out just fine, but I’m a technical person so I’m good at discovering how things are done. For those less technical people, the ones who’ll most likely be using your CMS, that’s not necessarily the case.

It’s not just duplication that’s a problem, however, it’s also feature overload. If you are the person that makes the final say before your product is shipped, it’s your responsibility to the end user to ensure that you really understand what type of product you are trying to sell them. Are you developing a CMS or an Experience? If the former, then by all means, go ahead and add as many buttons as you want and watch your sales drop. If the latter, then you need to consider what type of experience you are selling. The reason I am calling this an experience is simply because there are hundreds, nay thousands, of content management systems on the market and, for the most part, they all do pretty much the same things. What separates the good from the bad, however, is how they do it.

Look at WordPress as an example. It’s a blog platform primarily but because it’s been designed to be streamlined, logical, friendly and “just work”, people have taken it to a level far exceeding that which it was originally intended for. It’s now turned into a pretty solid CMS. Sure, it can’t do your taxes or invoicing (yet) but with WordPress, it’s about the experience and making it as easy as possible. Want to add a tweet to a post? Paste in the URL of the tweet and you are done. Need to share a YouTube video? Paste in the link and it’s sized and embedded automatically. Want to add a post? There’s only one way to do it, click add new post. Are you catching my drift?

In a nutshell what I’m getting at is this, in it’s simplest form, “Feature overload and feature duplication are bad”.

If you are looking to get a piece of this market, you need to stop thinking like a developer, start thinking like a creator and stop selling a product. Sell an experience. Think of your target audience and make it the product cater to them. Don’t try to make the audience cater to the product because you will not succeed. You will simply create frustration and eventually, drive your customer away.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is my rant for today. What are your thoughts?

Share →
  • Paulette Stout

    Your post really struck a chord with me. I’m an admittedly non-technical user who has struggled with cumbersome CMS interfaces before. I just started working at Sitefinity, and was blown away by how easy it is to use. I know I’m self promoting a bit here, but it was just night and day from the open source CMS I was using belore. While there may be some free CMS solutions that have gone the simplified route and are great, I did want to mention that there are some paid solutions like ours at Sitefinity that take usabilty very seriously and have streamlined the interface for just that reason. Thanks!

  • http://www.wordgym.com Bill Maslen

    Yes, I entirely agree with this point. Actually, it applies to an awful lot of corporate – especially “enterprise” – software, too. Microsoft’s recent drastic interface changes show that they’re aware it also applies to their Office software – a tricky thing to remedy, mind you, because once you offer lots of different options for doing the same thing, you find your users start to develop their own preferences for particular options (the classic keyboard users vs. mouse users dichotomy – a point that your iOS illustration sidesteps, as a matter of fact, because the only option on an iOS device is touch. But this can be solved by incorporating intelligent keyboard shortcuts – as many iOS writing apps have, in fact, done).

    The whole iOS environment has showed us a radically different kind of UX, and developers are still catching up with the sheer wealth of opportunities for radically rethinking the way we interact with software. This applies in particular to CMS, especially in view of the fact that people are increasingly working together via cloud apps. The opportunity to rethink the whole way in which documents are managed and authored is waiting for user-oriented developers to seize it by the throat! It’s nice to see newcomers to the CMS space start to show some initiative in this respect (e.g. Kerio Workspace), but there is still a very old-fashioned “feel” to the way most CMS solutions treat the data for which they act as a platform – no autotagging, for example, no support for multidocument comparisons, no “reference shelf” for temporarily storing specific documents you need for a large/complex project (sorry, bookmarks just don’t cut it), and only the most expensive authoring systems (e.g. AuthorIt) offer rudimentary options for automatically pulling up cross-references to existing documents as you’re writing a new one (an obvious use of computerized indexing, in my view, but clearly not one that’s been discovered by most developers as yet).

    The issue of autotagging is the one I find most baffling. The limitations of manual tagging have been pointed out by many sensible commentators. And yet only a very few apps (let alone CMS systems) offer this obvious feature. You might find it amusing – or perhaps indicative of where the really imaginative solutions will be found in the future – that one of them is an iOS app (ProjectBook).

    Nice article!

  • http://ocportal.com/ Chris Graham

    You could probably easily be talking about ocPortal when it comes to feature-overload, so I’d better argue the other angle ;-).

    I believe your reducing it down to the common denominator of user, when really it’s not always possible to do this. Many websites are pretty simple, a few pages, in a few categories, a header image, a few colours, a simple menu, and space for some widgets. WordPress serves that segment perfectly.

    However, many websites need to be very complex, lots of different content types providing rich functionality, lots of member engagement options, security auditing tools, complex multi-faceted taxonomies, faceted search, complex permission models, etc.

    Take your example of adding a video – handling it just as something that embeds within your usual kind of page is an ideal solution for a simple site. However, what if you need to manage a separate video library, what if you want to allow on-site discussion for each video, what if you want to allow videos to be played in sequence in a slideshow, what if you don’t want to put a dependency on a third-party like Youtube? Then you need a much more sophisticated model, and that’ll involve creating a separate section of the admin for managing videos.

    Regarding simplicity/non-simplicity of admin UIs… for a complex site, there is hopefully a team of people. So it’s not about “can this poor guy just install this and get a site up”, it’s more like different people on the team need different tools, and a good sophisticated CMS should actually be configurable to give these different people their own tailored views into the admin, showing just the features they need. One can’t just say “every website should be simple, throw out all features” — one needs to say, “for a complex site, the admin should be as simple as possible for the use cases of any particular one admin”.

    Different products are going to be tuned to different scenarios. I’d never recommend ocPortal for someone starting a blog. I’d definitely recommend ocPortal for someone starting a modern web property involving custom database structures with advanced social networking features. Sophistication isn’t the only axis to consider here, one needs to consider other ways a product is optimised – e.g. is it great for media, is it great for databases, is it great for social networking, or is it a good all-rounder; is it highly-performant, does it run on regular PHP web hosting, or does it use no-SQL but need a programmer to administer it?
    You said products pretty much do the same thing – maybe for many (there’s certainly a lot of page-tree systems), but I think across the market there are many different product kinds.

    As for poor UI design (duplication, inconsistency, etc), nobody has an excuse for that, especially nowadays where tools have had years to improve UIs and it’s been one of the main drivers for people. Things have moved on a long way – if anyone now looked at a product from 10-years ago, the difference in UI quality would be shocking.

    • http://www.cmscritic.com Mike Johnston

      Hi Chris

      Thanks for the comment. Even the most complex CMS can incorporate an easy to use interface. I’m not saying don’t have features, I’m saying that if you do, you should figure out how you really want the end user to interact with them and adapt accordingly. Here’s a good example. I’ve seen some that have two search bars. One for searching for content and one for searching within the CMS. Combining them and making the search more feature rich is more logical than having two and confusing the user with which one to use.

      Another good example are settings. Often we see these duplicated where a portion can be done in one menu and the rest in another. It’s better to figure out the best place to have them and put them all in one place, reducing frustration and the need to search for them.

      Make sense?

      Mike

      • http://ocportal.com/ Chris Graham

        Absolutely :).