[Sigia-l] Site maps for web apps, vs for content sites?

[Fred Beecher]

On 2/9/06, Jonathan Baker-bates <Jonathan.Baker-bates at framfab.com> wrote:
>
> I get the impression I'm missing something fundamental in this argument,
> but why would you even *attempt* to represent workflow (or process in
> general) as well as organisation? They're two completely different
> things. Is it any wonder that most of the solutions mentioned have
> involved separating them?

Correct, elaborating on the details of the workflow in the context of
organization just leads to needless headaches (for me anyway). All
that needs to be shown is that Workflow X fits into the overall
context of the site in Slot Y.

> On a side issue, I've never been able to grasp the popularity for
> organisational site maps. I can see they're useful as a high-level
> artefact to introduce people to the broad issues of what sort of content
> and user interactions are in scope, and roughly how they will be
> prioritised from the user's point of view. But anything more than that
> and the tree metaphor surely breaks down and becomes meaningless. Why
> are organisational site maps seen as worth of so much time?

They're valuable for exactly what you say, as well as showing the
relationship between content areas. I use these to show clients the
overall structure of the site and how it's organized. This is very
valuable for a client to view, understand, and approve of before any
development (content or technical) begins.

They also help us to give a new site form at a time during the process
when it's still nebulously defined. You may (and should!!!) have
requirements complete at this point, but it still doesn't *look* like
anything yet. The site map is generally the first time a client *sees*
their new site.

Take care,
Fred