Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

One thing I continue to struggle with is how relevant sitemaps are--and to whom?¹

Below is an example sitemap, which indicates the basic hierarchy of pages or categories within a site.

What's wrong with this picture?

Sitemaps don't represent pages...

Implicitly, they communicate pages of content. This is not necessarily the case. They are a quasi-system model that blurs the lines between content and page. This leads to misinterpretation.

Extending this, they are rooted in a page-centric approach that assumes pages have one state. Ajax-y interactions that reload different content into the same page aren't communicated. 

...and they don't really represent content.

They suggest content, but a through the lens of a page. This, I believe, is an artifact left over from the days where sitemaps were closely tied to the physical implementation. As we've evolved the idea of a sitemap away from actual pages, we didn't rethink how it is actually interpreted or used by either developers or clients. 

...and they don't reflect true navigation or interaction paths.

In fact, they indicate a hierarchical flow between pages. Sitemaps suggest that users typically access the site through the home page. Users who arrive via a search or a link from a friend are likely to be entering at a deeper level than the home page. Luke Wroblewski has a great podcast and set of slides on this.

And sitemaps don't account for related items--hyperlinks that bring together similar content that exist in different categories of the site. Similar information may be "nearer" than sitemaps suggest. The perceived distance is content too and associate navigation can be as important as the categorical navigation. 

So, what do they do well?

For me, they are good as a sketch -- not a final product -- for how content may be organized and how navigation may occur. They work well for initial scoping. But having to caveat what sitemaps are feels like a cop out. There's gotta be a better way.

 Any thoughts? Do sitemaps help you or confuse you?

¹I'm talking about the information architecture kind, but many of the points also extend to those junk drawer sitemap pages that many sites have. That's entirely another issue to address.

Granted, we’re not five anymore. And true, no one gives me allowance for doing my daily or weekly chores. But, don’t you miss that little easy-to-accomplish responsibility? Don’t you miss the kudos from Mom and Dad (and the quarter they placed in your hand) after you dusted off all the shelves?

Sometimes, in the hectic daily schedule of meetings, strategies brainstorms and budgets, I want something mindless to do. I want a task that I can do with others, have simple conversation and step back and say, ‘Yep, I did that. And I did it well.’

So, friends and coworkers – I propose chores. Capstrat chores.

 Here’s how it may work:

1. You all break into teams, based on the number of chore categories.
2. You name your team, because it’s fun and improves the experience.
3. There’s a chore jar, or some means to ‘pick’ your team’s chore for the week.
4. And then, imagine this, for 15 minutes on one day each week, you get your team together and do your chores. Ok, more like 5 minutes in some cases.
5. You feel great. You stepped away from your desk and escaped the hustle and bustle. You chatted it up with your team, unfroze your brain and did something good.

 Proposed chores:

1. Lint brushing the conference room chairs. (It’s about time! Admit it - they can be kind of gross.)
2. Transporting the white paper from around the office into the appropriate recycling bin.
3. Unloading the dishwasher.
4. Straightening the kitchen and media bar.
5. Wiping down all the conference rooms tables with Lysol wipes.
6. Passing out wipes to everyone to clean their desk areas. (Come on, you know we share germs far too often!)

The possibilities are endless. Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to have a chore or two. Will you?