Why sometimes it doesn’t matter that your content isn’t sexy

Kristina Halvorson said “content is the least sexy thing ever” in a recent Event Apart presentation. She went on to explain what we all know to be true, and yet sometimes lose sight of: people are not coming to your website for your code or “pretty pictures”. They’re coming for content and information, whether it’s delivered in text, images, or other media.

Content doesn’t have to be sexy. We should make every attempt to make it visually appealing and easy to read. But time and again the same websites prove themselves to be incredibly robust and popular information sources, and they’re some of the most boring looking sites in existence.

A great way to view content through the right lens is to think about when you search for health information online. We all do it. And where do we go for reliable information? Wherever we can find the most accurate, up-to-date information. As patients, we’re not picky. We just want the truth, and it doesn’t have to be pretty.

Another area where this view is particularly accurate, at least for me, is in getting weather information. Usually I search for forecasts on my smartphone, and I’m a nerd, so I want semi-detailed forecast info, not just a picture of a sun or rain drops. I used to use a weather app, which I found very accurate for current conditions (It’s raining? I just looked out my window and got the same information). But where have I found the best mobile weather experience? It’s not The Weather Channel or Accuweather.

The Weather Channel's visuals have actually improved, but I still can't get to the info I want easily.

Accuweather's mobile content is somewhat visually appealing, but I want more than just a picture and a couple of weather-y words.

It’s the NOAA. That’s right, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a government organization, has a better mobile UX and content than two of the biggest “names” in mainstream weather forecasting when it comes to the kind of detailed, word-based forecast information I’m looking for when I want to know if we’re going to get the hypothetical weekend snowstorm everyone’s talking about that day.

The NOAA's approach is no frills, loads fast, and helps me find exactly what I need quickly.

Yes, I like text-only weather forecasts that actually give me useful information.

Why? Because the NOAA gets that you’re not there for pretty pictures, blinking images, or “you may be interested in the fishing forecast for Maine” (really, I’m not.) They give you exactly the information you need. It’s not pretty. But it gets the job done, and keeps me coming back whenever I need accurate weather information that isn’t going to leave me wanting to throw my phone into a snowbank.

---