I agree that causing a bit of conflict is part of the job. And you’re spot on that perceived seniority is the problem; that perception comes as much from ourselves as from our imagined persecutors. (E.g. the classic excuse, “my boss won’t let me,” is the voice of the resistance.) If we can explain and advocate for change, what does our formal job title matter?

Got to say that this phenomenon effects me from time to time, and equally frustrates me when I see it in colleagues who tow the line with implementing poor strategic decisions without sufficient challenge.

I guess they’re trying to keep their heads down (boo) but as you say, this is the sure way to make yourself irrelevant. As in-house web people we’re often in the weird position of being experts in what needs to happen, but without the perceived seniority to get things done.

The way I see it, if we aren’t ruffling a few feathers and causing a healthy amount of conflict, we aren’t doing our jobs at all.

Thanks for your comment.

The problem I’m talking about is wireframes that help “refine and agree upon interaction/flow”, as you put it, but aren’t accompanied by a realistic plan for making that interaction/flow/experience happen over time. Because that requires content strategy: substance, workflow, governance.

Just because we can all agree that an interaction or flow is desirable, doesn’t mean we’ve committed to a plan to actually create that experience over time. Without a realistic content strategy, that wireframe is just an aspiration.

I do agree on the value of content strategy in this process though — wireframes with lorem ipsum are evil

“Turn everything off and just do it!”

Closing Twitter now.