The Joy of Titling

One of the joys of being a publisher is seeing books develop over time.

One of the trials of being a publisher is helping to pick book titles.

Sometimes it is fairly easy. Agile Web Development with Rails pretty much summed up the book's content.

At other times, though, it's remarkably difficult. A back title can seriously harm a book. For example, Chad Fowler's first book with us is really, really good: a guide to managing and developing your career as a programmer. It was a joy to edit, and everyone who's read it loves it. But when it came time to give it a title, we were stumped. In the end, we decided to go for something a little jokey with some shock value, and My Job Went to India was born.

Big mistake.

The title didn't work. We sold a decent number of copies (just under 10,000), but we *should* have sold 3, 4, or 5 times that. It's a very, very good book. But I blew it for Chad by going with the wrong title. (It says a lot for Chad that he went ahead and wrote Rails Recipes with us after that.)

And now I feel like it might be about to happen again. Jeremy Sydik is finishing off a wonderful book. IT's all about how to create web sites that can be used by people with disabilities: the blind and color blind, those with motor problems, and so on. We clearly have a responsibility to create accessible sites but, as this book points out, we can also benefit greatly in terms of traffic if our sites can be used by the whole online population.

So then we come back to the thorny title problem. Right now, we're selling the beta with the name The Accessible Web—Creating Content for Everyone. But that doesn't seem to be working; folks I've talked to aren't clear what the book is about.

We're thinking about retitling the book. The current front-runner is Designing Web Content for Users with Disabilities—36 Keys for Unlocking the Accessible Web.

So, here's my question. Does that work better as a title? Or is there a *great* title we're missing?

I want to give these books the audiences they deserve. Help me out.

Thanks

Dave

Comments

[sandofsky]

I hate the term "Accessibility." Your site is accessible unless there's password protection.

It's too bad people would probably get offended by "Creating Handicap Accessible Websites."

[Marcel Molina]

The keyword that maps most immediately to the subject matter of the book in my mind is "Accessibility". If I were doing a Google search, that's what I'd type in. So though I like your more stylistic original title, perhaps a very, very literal title would attract the most search engine hits. Something like:

"Web Accessibility: Designing Websites for Users with Disabilities"

And btw, having read Chad's book My Job Went to India, I can second Dave's claim that it's is a really, really good book. It's influenced my career choices considerably. Unfortunately, I agree that the title and cover art were an unfortunate choice. Having said that, I'd highly recommend the book.

[Sergio Pereira]

I happen to think that the beta title is really good. It has a very positive and clear choice of words. Maybe the problem is that the topic does not get yet the attention it deserves. It's been very uncommon for me to see the accessibility requirement come up in any list.

[ewH]

Hi Dave,

Is the book focused on creating web sites that are specifically designed for users with disabilities or creating web sites that can be used by everyone including those with disabilities? It seems that your current front-runner portrays the former, while the original title leans towards the latter.

Personally, I think your description of the book in this post would make a pretty nice title:

"How to create web sites that can be used by people with disabilities: the blind and color blind, those with motor problems, and so on."

Cheers,
ewH

[meekish]

It's pretty hard to get excited about accessibility; it just isn't that "cool". Personally, I'd try to ride some web 2.0 buzz with the title. Try to appeal to the more egotistical side of web developers.

Utilize phrases like 'semantic', 'clean', 'robust', 'cutting-edge', 'pragmatic', 'separating concerns', etc. and I'd be much more likely to pick it up off the shelf.

[Aitor]

I agree with Marcel. Like it or not, 'accessibility' is the most widely accepted term and as such I think it's a good idea that it's in the title. I'm not too sure about the second part of the original title. 'Creating Content for Everyone' sounds a bit too vague.

Mixing the original title with Marcel's, I'd suggest something like:

Accessible web: Designing Websites for Users with Disabilities

[Mike Sax]

A few thoughts:

- Accessibility sounds more related to disabilities than accessible as an adjective.

- Sadly, the only reason websites are made accessible is to comply to regulations. Maybe the title could include a legal reference.

- Maybe the title could strongly express a moral imperative - ignoring accessibility effectively puts an "access denied" sign on your website for an important group of people.

[Chuck Vose]

I have to agree that accessibility is probably one of my least favorite topics where the keyword semantic makes me wiggle my feet just a little bit.

Sadly they're only related topics. You might have to do a lot of revision if he's not working with that a lot.

The only possible recommendation I have would be to do what we do with our websites which is to get a list of keywords that vaguely relate to the site we're making and run search engine rankings on each keyword. At least that would give you a good idea what keywords people care about.

But yeah, accessibility sounds like a dry, boring book to me. But then, maybe it's just a boring topic and there's not much to do about it.

Empowered Websites: How To Win The Website Special Olympics.
Accessibility: How It Became So Important While Nobody Was Looking.
Accessibility: The Buzzword That Grew Up Faster Than Your Company Did.

I really like the idea of pairing Accessibility with something just a little insulting. Everyone looks down on it but it's really pretty pathetic that most of us don't understand it. I feel the same way about Unicode. And we probably should feel pathetic about it to be honest.

Also, taking a cue from the Special Olympics website is the keyword empowering. They're all about empowering and building better things. I think that special olympians have it right; why shouldn't we use accessibility as an excuse to redesign our layouts? We all know that CSS greatly improves speed, semantic styling makes it easier to use and comprehend (and HAML/SASS make this even easier but they're a little too new). Screw accessible, I want fast, lean, and as a side-effect that people can read it even if they're blind.

Pardon the ramble, I hope at least one word inspires you even if the rest of the comment is unrevised rubbish. :)

[Robert Pierce]

Dave, your radar is right; it's a poor title choice. Why not use the words you used when you sat down to write and describe this to us:

Title: Making Accessible Websites
Subtitle: How to create web sites that can be used by people with disabilities

(Active, strong construction and the simplest description you came up with. Plus, it looks like it's unused at the moment.)

Alternate: Making Your Website Accessible

-Robert
C3 Media Group

[Bernie Thompson]

Accessibility is just one of those words that's too rare, too long, to create the right resonance.

Plus, accessibility has applicability beyond disability and regulation -- it's flexibility to display on a wider variety of media (different browsers, smaller screens, etc.)

"Web Sites for Everyone"
"Creating Web Sites for Everyone"

BUT .. the current title is good too.

[roberthahn]

I'm no copywriting expert, but I do recall seeing a series on 'Magnetic Headlines' over at Copyblogger: http://www.copyblogger.com/magnetic-headlines

Perhaps something in there would give you some insight.

[Jason Yip]

I agree with Marcel that you want "accessibility" in the title because that's what I and I suspect others would search for. I would avoid having "disabled", "disability" or any variant thereof in the title. That smells like another "My Job Went to India" mistake.

I like Bernie's suggestion of using "for Everyone".

How about, "Designing Web Sites for Everyone: 36 keys to web accessibility"?

[meekish]

"Empowered Websites: How To Win The Website Special Olympics."

I love it. I would drop 40 bones for a book with that title.

[roberthahn]

"Web Content for Everybody -- Real World Techniques That Help Search Engines and Handicapped Persons"

Granted, the book's focus might be far from building content for search engines, but when you design sites for disabled persons, the search engines do benefit, and a title like that may be bait enough to get people to buy the book.

[Derek at CD Baby]

Remember what problem this book is helping solve for people.

Designers want to know their site can be used by EVERYONE. I'd appeal to that.

Making Your Website Accessible to Everyone.

[Joe Grossberg]

A Web Without Bias:
Building Sites for Everyone

[Simon Harris]

Although 'Accessibility' is a keyword, one of the things that I like about the alternate title (although I think it still needs work) is that it speaks to people who (to coin a phrase hehe) didn't know they didn't know.

I'm a developer and I see 'Accessibility' and I think "Sure, I know how to make web sites that are easy to use.". On the other hand, I see the words 'Designing Web Content for Users with Disabilities' and I think "Gee, I hadn't considered that people with disabilities would need special consideration!"

So how about something along the lines of: "The Accessible Web: How Designing Content for Users with Disabilities Improves Everyone's Surfing Experience"

One caveat, I suspect my Antipodean views on the word 'Disabilities' aren't as tainted as say those of someone in the US.

In any event, the main point I'm trying to make is that, as with Chad's first book, I suspect there will have been some that were offended by the title however, more likely, people wouldn't have identified with it or even understood what the book was actually about.

[Eric]

As you mentioned in your post, the problem is that "folks [you]'ve talked to aren't clear what the book is about." I'm not too surprised by that. "Creating Content for Everyone" is entirely too nebulous and not at all informative. If the book really focuses on designing for the disabled then it should say just that.

My vote would go to your current front-runner.

Whatever title you settle on, keep the "36 keys" part. It gives the buyer a clue into how the book is organized, has a more 'recipes' feel and gives the book a focus that generic words like "Content" and "Everyone" do not. 36 is small and discrete. 36 is something you can wrap your head around. 36 is doable.

[Joon]

"Designing Web Content for Users with Disabilities—36 Keys for Unlocking the Accessible Web" seems like a winner. It's direct without any room for misunderstanding. It's a bit long, but who cares? I'm so sick and tired of publishers trying to be cute and forgetting what the book is all about. The goal of the title should clearly communicate what the book is all about.

[Adam]

Like Marcel I would Google for "accessibility" if I wanted such a book. But if the word is not in common usage, then a variation on a theme with an "edgy" title might be:

Access All Areas: Web Design to Include Users with Disabilities

I like the idea of 'inclusion' or 'enabling' rather than 'for' disabilities. As the site should still be just as functional for other users.

[MikeH]

How about "Creating Web Content for Everyone"?

Personally, I like the original title, but I know some about Accessibility (because I know Jeremy . . ;) but I see what Dave means.

[Jeremy]

A few alternatives spring to mind...

"Designing Accessible Content"
"Accessible Web Design"
"Practical Accessibility"
"Accessibility for the Web"
"Prioritizing Web Accessibility"
"Designing for Accessibility"

I would shoot for an "active" title that's easy to remember and maps to keywords, so something like "Designing for Accessibility" or "Prioritizing Web Accessibility" would probably be a good fit. Of course, that's just how book titles stick in my mind (e.g., "Programming Ruby").

[Nipponese]

How about

"Barrier Free Web"

?

[nicolas]

hmmm sounds like you have a misconception of accessibility in the first place. It is not only about making - in this context - the web, (more) accessibile/usable for handicapped persons but for all of us.
So if the book is not in deed only about the subtopic of making the web more accessible for handicapped people it would be a gross error to go with a title that says so.
In your article you say "IT's all about how to create web sites that can be used by people with disabilities" and then you speak about the title "The Accessible Web—Creating Content for EVERYONE." (emphasize by me).
So this seems to me a contradiction. What is the content about? Accessability for "everyone" as the title says or for "handicaped" as you describe it in the article?

(BTW - Thanks for all the good books, maybe you go wrong with the title sometimes but the content never disappointed me)

[Daniel Haran]

How about taking the guesswork out, and advertising the book with Adwords or other text-ads? See which ones get a high click-through and/or pre-order. Warn people the title may change :)