You’ll see many people who feel that SEO is marketed using FUD, that’s Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The assumption is that all those spamming emails you receive offering to get you on the first page of Google use this. You must have thousands of web pages and thousands of back links or you will not achieve this obviously important ranking.

I realized the biggest creator of FUD in this scenario is Google itself.

Discuss Fear and Loathing on the Search Engine Marketing Trail

You’ll find their findings in books, such as The Brand Bubble, and conferences. However, we already got the heads up via The Cluetrain Manifesto, back in 1999.

Flat Earth Rules for Marketing discusses “Five New Rules for Marketing” that came out of a recent Ad Age’s Digital Conference. You’ll find reminders and a quick refresher on engaging the web community.

Listening to consumers is more important than talking at them. As Mr. Clift said, “We may be ahead of our competitors, but we’re most definitely behind consumers.” The consumer is not a moron, she’s the person defining your brand.

To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.

But first, they must belong to a community.

Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end.

If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no market.”

Read more Rules for Marketing

We, at Cre8asiteforums, think you’re all sweethearts.  PS…and we love hugs.

Happy Valentine’s Day Everyone!

Image courtesy of Risa Borsykowsky

Check it out and if you meet the criteria, contact us for inclusion. We’d love to meet you and hear about your project.

We honor you this week.

A Cre8asiteforums thread explores this common experience in Your Client Insists On Flash – What Do You Do?

Two weeks later and the discussion is still going strong. It contains stories, references and examples.

The thread was kicked off by Yannis, who asks

The word semantic has many different meanings for different people. Have you got your own definition and meaning? Have you got your own rules about semantics that you follow?

A great question, it’s followed by some excellent posts, which ask a number of other questions.

What is semantically rich HTML? How well does it work with SEO, with standards?

Should a logo be placed within a <h1> element on each page of your site?

How do search engines interpret a horizontal rule <hr> element?

Is “semantically rich HTML” more structure, and less semantics?

Does semantic markup even matter if a page displays correctly in a browser, and is getting indexed?

What is the best approach to take with <h1> elements from an accessibility stance?

Where will Microformats and HTML 5.0 take us in terms of semantic meaning?

Should you have more than one <h1> element on a page?

How might a search engine use “Document segmentation based on visual gaps” and the semantics of a page to recognize that different parts of a page cover different topics?

If you have some thoughts about Semantic HTML, please jump aboard the thread, and post your questions, or your answers, or both.

I’m having trouble deciding what to label the input. Should it be URL, address, web address, link?

“Normal” people, like us web folks, never did agree on just one way. The song about the “Funny Farm” is an added bonus…

Nope. That can’t be right.

Since so many people question the logic and message behind ASK’s ad campaign, I find I’m not alone. Many of you have no idea what the hell is going on either.

Cre8asiteforums’ members are all over this, in Ask’s Bizarre Bad Taste And Weird Ad Placement

The Unabomber killed 3 people and wounded more than 20 others. This is what Ask is now using as a marketing ploy? I’m totally disgusted.

The line in another version of the campaign: ‘The algorithm killed Jesus’.

Now there’s something about “half dressed women with swords”.

(If a web developer describes a website interaction at 50 mph, and their client understands their description at 30 mph, when will web developer and client meet at website launch “C”?)

Regardless of these challenges, it continues to be critically important that whoever you’re working with understands what it is you’re proposing to do before you pursue the work, if the interface will be at all complicated. Your time is too valuable to waste by starting over because the client didn’t understand your intent.

There are a number of simple ways to demonstrate these sorts of things — and, to be honest, I tend towards the non-technical. Very non-technical, actually.

1. Little pieces of paper with words on ‘em.

   Yes, I’ll just take all the potential components of the page (navigation items, control buttons, text boxes, etc.) and make little mobile collages. For clarity, I’ll sometimes splurge and use colored construction paper. If you’ve got younger kids, I’m sure you’ve got plenty around! Using these images, I’ll diagram the site processes to make a demonstration. For in-person demos, I might just push pieces of paper around: or for a distant example, I’ll photograph the different states and set up a demo.

2. Whiteboard and plastic with erasable markers.

   For a more improvisatory experience, I’ll just start scribbling ideas in different layers to show interactions between elements. This can be more effective when brain storming ideas with a client; the collage method being a little too preparation intensive.

3. Plain old pencil and paper.

   This one doesn’t really work for me, actually. Maybe it’s because I can’t really draw…live sketching is inevitably going to lead to a poor design impression for me. However, it’s a tried and true classic method of communicating graphical concepts — so I’m definitely willing to suggest it to those of you who can put it to effective use!

Yes, you can make it much more complicated. You can build complete XHTML mockups, create Photoshop design concepts, or create Flash interaction demonstrations. For some projects, this might be the best way: although I’m trying to take some of the burden of imagination out of the equation, using paper cutouts certainly doesn’t completely eliminate the necessity. Some clients really want to know exactly what you’re going to do, making this kind of approximation unacceptable.

However, in many cases, just providing a visual example will make a concept clear which otherwise leaves your client shaking their heads. Some would argue that this kind of methodology is unprofessional: I’d say that it’s just efficient. Technology is not required to lay out an effective interface design.

But they’re a little bit worried. Although this seems like a logical choice, there may well be some consequences! How might a user react to a radical change in the basic functionality of a site?

Confusion

At first glance, if you’re accustomed to making a selection from a drop-down box, being confronted with a text input could be a bit disconcerting. In this particular case, the drop down was a product list. Do you actually know the names of your own products? Can you assume that others will? Perhaps your users need the little reminder they get from seeing their product listed.

You can prevent this problem: tell your users about the change, and explain it. It won’t resolve the whole problem, of course. After all, there are plenty of people who never RTFM, no matter how hard it is to avoid. But don’t hide the information: don’t bury it in fine print, don’t conceal it with an obscure icon: state it in plain text on the form.

Avoidance

Not knowing what to do with the new interface, what percentage of users will explore the new interface and learn it? What percentage will abandon it immediately in search of some other solution? In this case, it seemed like the customers were pretty committed to the site — I don’t know exactly what it was, but it does seem something like an inventory control service or something to that effect. The customers can’t just abandon the company. But they can abandon the site. If you suddenly find yourself barraged with questions which used to be solved through your website, you may have that situation.

Sometimes users will avoid a new interface because they are more comfortable with something familiar. And, for many people, picking up the telephone and asking somebody a question is still more familiar than AJAX. I know — unbelievable, isn’t it?

Providing choice for the user is important. If the backend of the interface still works in fundamentally the same way, is it absolutely necessary to enforce use of the new system? AJAX is an unfamiliar beast for many users — perhaps you should not only provide a solid fallback solution for users without JavaScript, but make that fallback solution mimic your previous interface AND give your users the option to choose to use it.

Giving your users a choice in how to use your site can help empower them. Rather than just wrenching out the previous system from underfoot, take it in stages: implement one change at a time, ask for user feedback, and give the option to fallback to the previous system as long as you can. (Sometimes you can’t; c’est la vie.) But most of all provide assistance to your users in adapting to the new system. Change can be brutal, and is frequently very unpopular. But the unpopularity of a new interface may come as much from a lack of communication as from any actual problem with the new system.

It’s an unfortunate thing that the member who posted this question hasn’t returned to follow up. I’m curious to see what kinds of decisions get made!