Posts within the category: FAQs

September 28, 2010

FAQs Upgrade: How the Library of Congress Regrouped to Improve Self-Service Content

Many congratulations to Paul Weiss, Senior Cataloging Policy Specialist, in the Library of Congress's Policy and Standards Division. After participating in an Advanced Writing for the Web course I recently taught, Paul rolled up his sleeves for a re-do of his FAQs page on cataloging.

Paul's FAQs, intended for archivists and librarians, had become an apples-and-oranges list of 23 questions. Some of the FAQs were clearly written for librarians--What office is responsible for cataloging policy at the Library of Congress?--and others were for publishers--How can I get my publication cataloged? And, as we all know, a list of 23 FAQs is too long for users. Instead of using the 23 FAQs to answer their questions themselves, most users will just give up and send an e-mail or give you a call.

The old version of the Library of Congress's FAQs about Cataloging

The new-and-improved version of the Library of Congress's FAQs about Cataloging

The new FAQs are truly improved:

• They have been sorted into three main categories--for the General Public, for Publishers, and for Librarians--and several subcategories.
• They are written in first person. Now the FAQ reads How can I obtain information about cataloging when the old version read How can publishers obtain ...
• Some FAQs were eliminated, which means the old list of 23 was given a thorough content review.

Have a great before-and-after example you'd like to share? Let me know and I will feature your rewrite here.

-- Leslie O'Flahavan

June 9, 2010

"If Your Web Content Is Good, You Don't Need FAQs"

That's what a participant said during a web writing course I taught recently for the Federal Library and Information Network at the Library of Congress.

"We Don't Need No Stinkin' FAQs"

I've heard this opinion before. Lots of people object to websites that segregate answers to users' questions in a long sprawling FAQs section. Instead, they believe the content should anticipate and answer users' questions, page by page. I understand this point of view, especially when I come across pages like the Baby's First Circus page at the Ringling Bros. site.

The Baby's First Circus page is a thin 200 words. It describes the Baby's First Circus program, which provides a free circus ticket and a certificate for children up to 12 months old.  But to get any detail about the program, such as links to the sign-up pages, the program rules, and the mailing address to send birth certificates if you want to enroll your triplets (!!!), you have to go to the separate Baby Program FAQs page.

This method of organizing the content suits no one. The Baby's First Circus page is too short and insubstantial, and the FAQs page has its own problems:

• the questions are numbered, which implies a sequence that doesn't exist
• it includes information for two distinct groups: parents who haven't registered yet and those who have already registered. By dumping this information into one FAQs section, Ringling Bros. forces each type of user to wade through the info intended for the other type.
  
  

 

The Enduring Appeal of FAQs

Don't get me wrong. I 'm not against FAQs in general. FAQs are one of the most compelling ways to present information online. Because users see their very own questions, written in their very own words, users really like and rely on FAQs. Think about it: FAQs are so popular that they are the only type of web content we refer to by initials. We don't call the About Us page the AU or the Products and Services page the P &S, do we?

Users turn to a website's FAQs section because they want to know:

• What questions should I have?
• Can I find a short cut or a short version here?
• Can I get a simple yes or no?
• Can I find my info more easily here than in the “real” content pages?
• Can I find my questions phrased in my wording, using terminology I will understand?

So, when FAQs are done right, they are a great asset. But FAQs should not become a dumping ground for content that should be integrated into the site's architecture and supported by navigation.

What do you think? How have you handled the FAQs-vs.-content-pages issue at your site? Do you agree with this statement: "If your web content is good, you don't need FAQs"? Post your thoughts here or let me know.

-- Leslie O'Flahavan

Get email updates

Subscribe via RSS