(Both hyphenated or not hyphenated for consistency. As a matter of style guidelines, we would say not hyphenated; i.e. not 'front-end'.)
These are emerging terms in the field of content strategy that distinguish the front-side processes and tactics (editorial stuff) from the back-side (engineering stuff) as talked about by Anne Rockley.
Unlike "content strategy" (which is currently dropped as a glossary term), they do not suggest a field of study. Similar terms being information architecture, content marketing, technical communication, interaction design, etc. All of which are not suitable for the glossary, in my opinion, because they are fields of study that don't need definitions as far as this project is concerned.
Rather, the terms I'm proposing for consideration are specific subareas of focus, and have their own related (and overlapping) vocabularies, many of such terms will likely end up in the glossary.
I also like these terms because they are an easier concept to grasp about division of labor in the workforce, and as some of us may be acutely aware, that distinction is not clear among many in the content fields.
Finally, they are a less buzzy/cliquey way of people wanting to say 'intelligent content strategy' and 'content marketing', which I don't even think would be accurate in this case.
As an after-thought, "frontend strategy" and "backend strategy" would make good categorization terms for the glossary at the very least. These and few others could then be used in production development to enable glossary users to filter terms in a few key ways. This is triggering an idea already. Expect a new issue on this point too, but it's a separate consideration from the proposal I'm making now.
wion
commented
7 years ago
I propose discussing the addition of two terms:
(Both hyphenated or not hyphenated for consistency. As a matter of style guidelines, we would say not hyphenated; i.e. not 'front-end'.)
These are emerging terms in the field of content strategy that distinguish the front-side processes and tactics (editorial stuff) from the back-side (engineering stuff) as talked about by Anne Rockley.
Unlike "content strategy" (which is currently dropped as a glossary term), they do not suggest a field of study. Similar terms being information architecture, content marketing, technical communication, interaction design, etc. All of which are not suitable for the glossary, in my opinion, because they are fields of study that don't need definitions as far as this project is concerned.
Rather, the terms I'm proposing for consideration are specific subareas of focus, and have their own related (and overlapping) vocabularies, many of such terms will likely end up in the glossary.
I also like these terms because they are an easier concept to grasp about division of labor in the workforce, and as some of us may be acutely aware, that distinction is not clear among many in the content fields.
Finally, they are a less buzzy/cliquey way of people wanting to say 'intelligent content strategy' and 'content marketing', which I don't even think would be accurate in this case.
As an after-thought, "frontend strategy" and "backend strategy" would make good categorization terms for the glossary at the very least. These and few others could then be used in production development to enable glossary users to filter terms in a few key ways. This is triggering an idea already. Expect a new issue on this point too, but it's a separate consideration from the proposal I'm making now.