Use Wordle to visualize client documents

When in direct contact with clients, there are many different things we can read in order to get information to help us do our job even better—which, let’s face it, is to give our clients what they want while catering to what they need, in a way which conforms to our own standards of quality. The information the client voluntarily provides is the primary source of input for a project, but things we can pick up on outside of the main message can be relevant as well:

  • personal taste of the client
  • personal taste of the spouse of the client (oh, yes, it’s true) or other stakeholders
  • body language
  • use of language and tone-of-voice (whether written or spoken)
  • etc. (I’m sure you can think of quite a few)

Use of language

Use of language is an interesting one. I’m an American working in Holland, so when I write proposals in Dutch, I might not be choosing the very best words to describe what I mean because there’s always a limit to my vocabulary compared to that of a native speaker. Even within my native American English, I’m sure my vocabulary is quite limited (although I’d love to attribute that fact to
the 80/20 rule). But language barriers aside, when one’s vocabulary offers more than one word to describe something, the choice of word can say a lot about the way the person approaches a given subject. Choice of words, very much like choice of clothing or choice of music, can give tiny bits of insight into personal preference, corporate politics (in the form of resentment or rebellion), level of expertise on web-related issues and sometimes even hidden meaning.

This very simple process would involve determining which meaningful words a client uses, and how often they use them. By meaningful I mean giving little or no value to adjectives, conjunctions and the like. “The” is not going to tell us much.

How to do it

With the spoken word this is hard to do. You can’t get an exact count of specific words while talking to a client. And if you could, you’d look like an asshat. Personally, I tend to make mind maps during client meetings, which by definition means that I’m only writing down keywords in relation to each other. Mind mapping also minimizes writing time, which allows me to pay more attention.

When you get written material from a client, like an RFP or a project brief, there’s a cool way to do it: Wordle. Wordle is a fantastic little tool which examines a piece of text, counts the words and creates a treemap-like visualization of these words. The most-used word is largest, while the least-used is smallest. And with options for colors, fonts and placement, Wordle word clouds look nice as well.

Wordle visualization of this post

Play around

Try it out. Take a document in which your client explains what she wants or expects of your current project (or any correspondence, for that matter) and throw it into Wordle. See if it tells you something you hadn’t noticed by simply reading. Oh: Don’t save your client’s stuff in the Wordle gallery. Thank you.

Please note that in dealing with clients it would be foolish to rely on word analysis alone, but it could be a nice addition to one’s toolbox. Since clients often expect us to read their minds, we might as well oblige as best we can.

The Design Funnel: A Manifesto for Meaningful Design

It seems to me that in the past 20 years, design creativity has become increasingly driven and limited by design tools, rather than the brains using them. This leads to a high level of design sameness and general lack of creativity. Many (web) design curricula are now tool-based, and I notice many designers skipping or drastically shortening the thinking process behind a design, preferring to dive into Photoshop or (insert tool here).

If what Paul Rand once said is true, that design is a method of putting form and content together, then one of the fundamental tasks of a designer is to understand this content, and funnel the abstract wishes and values of the client into a usable design language (which can then be implemented using tools). Only then will the design have more meaning and creative depth.

I’ve advocated the large-to-small, abstract-to-specific process for years, and we utilize it at Cinnamon whenever possible. I’m happy to have had the opportunity to write a manifesto for ChangeThis describing this philosophy.

If you’re interested in a design process which encourages effective creative thinking (and therefore yields effective design), please check it out and give it away. And feel free to post your thoughts.

While you’re at it, go ahead and check out Hugh MacLeod’s famous and excellent manifesto on being more creative.

Personal publishing via web services

Jon Tan and Jon Gibbons recently launched a website for Denna Jones. It’s a great-looking site, and it makes no use of a (single, local) content management system. Rather, the content is pulled from several web services, such as Flickr and Magnolia.

This is an interesting idea, but I’m on the fence about the approach. While the site is a coherent whole, it’s an *automatically generated* coherent whole; the author herself may not even be aware of the state of her site at any given moment in time. In effect, it seems to me to be a very well-designed, well thought-out feed aggregator. A fan of Jeremy Keith‘s approach, I’ve always tended to see these services as *extras*, at most supplemental bits of not-necessarily-related content.

On the other hand, this isn’t a bad thing. If the aggregated web services are often used by the author, then it’s most likely no chore for her to log in to four or five sites instead of one CMS: one to add photos, one to add bookmarks, another to blog, etc. While I’m so busy doing other things that I don’t have time to attend to this site [I haven't even really *designed* the thing yet], Denna is creating bits of *microcontent* which are combined into something bigger, perhaps more meaningful in surprising ways. Her site is updated as she tweets. That seems quite effortless.

Perhaps I need to get over the fear of the fragility of web services, the idea that they can and sometimes do hiccup, burp, vomit or completely self-destruct. The *dependency* on these sites. Maybe it’s a matter of choosing the services owned by the big players, just to play it safe. But wait! We want *control*. Our own favorite content management system, tweaked just so. Argh.

Web 2.0 is about reusing information, and Web 3.0 will be about making information more meaningful by defining and discovering relationships between all these bits of information. The Jons are onto something with Denna’s site. There’s a transition here. And now others will follow.

It’s such a logical, natural approach. It’s the gorilla on the table. I like it. I think.