Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:38:34 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:58:09 +0100, William Hudson (ACM) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Damon -
>
> > Although phrasing it in this elaborate and natural way may
> > connect with the customer ("That's exactly my question!") it
> > also makes the list hell to scan quickly for keywords.
>
> I couldn't agree more. But an FAQ is really just a poor fix for a bad
> design. The site presents information in one form - usually without
> regard for users' needs - and then "real" questions have to be added to
> try to bridge the gulf.
Although I concur that some implementations of FAQs fall into
William's damning categorization, I disagree that FAQs should always
be relegated to the trash bin.
I'm working on a large site here in WA as a copywriter who understands
experience design. (an interesting role, but that's another
discussion). Based on the personas developed by the design team, we
are keeping the FAQ for our "just the facts" geek person that expects
a comprehensive FAQ.
My challenge is to figure out how to categorize (keywords) the
questions so that the FAQ is not one long enumerated list. I'm doing
this by examining the intentions we've identified for each persona.
Don't know if it will be "right" but it will be an improvement over
the current site!
Of course, we want to make sure that the questions are also answered
in the appropriate "sections" of the site. Redundancy can be a good
thing. :)
Kathy
|
|
|