You're kidding ...right? Content died a long time ago. It's almost impossible to get on-topic posts
in the content discussion forum.
And these are not executives we're talking about. About every third post here asks about "the best CMS" with not so much as a hint of
content strategy. It could be called information, or quality writing. It's not. For every 200 discussions of which CMS there is perhaps one about actually creating quality content.
Check out this nice article arguing about
scraped content. This is hardly atypical. Content is what fillss a layout container. And the time spent on the layout versus writing anything substantive is evidence.
In
The rebooter’s children go rebootless Zeldman notes
Quote:
|
Maybe redesigning for the sake of redesigning is not enough: to communicate visually one must first have something to communicate about. ...Rarely could you identify an idea or purpose behind the site, or name a possible user goal the site was intended to facilitate. There was no flow, no legibility, no usability. It wasn’t so much that the designers had contempt for their users as that they seemed never to have been taught to think about users at all.
|
Is this very far from the most mindlessly superficial best of network TV? Have you ever landed on a site
SEo'd within an inch of its life? Ever find a site with
stock photography cliches?
People build layouts and fill them. They fill the conteainer with generic, trite, boring
content. The very term
content suggests no less. Content was designed to be an excuse for technology. For more sites than would care to admit it, content is what's keeping the keywords from running together.
Content would be that kingdom the vast majority are too embarrassed to admit they can't find on a map. In practice, content is merely a figurehead king, without power or authority. Not much different than make believe "reality TV."