When starting a new project, decision makers are faced with the dilemma of choosing a content management system (CMS). Sometimes, it’s not that simple and they must choose whether to go with a traditional CMS or a headless CMS. Both offer unique benefits and cater to different needs, making it crucial to understand when each makes sense for your project. Let’s take a look at some considerations that can help you make the right decision.

What is a Traditional CMS?

Traditional CMS’s – like Craft CMS, WordPress, and Drupal – offer a pre-packaged solution for content creation, management, and delivery. They include powerful interfaces with content editing capabilities and templating out of the box, enabling you to create sites with ease. A traditional CMS can be monolithic because the back-end and front-end are tightly coupled. Using a traditional CMS typically means you are using all of the tools included to achieve your goal.

What is a Headless CMS?

A Headless CMS is like a Traditional CMS in that it includes content creation and management tools. But it differs in the fact that the back-end content management system is decoupled from the front-end (presentation layer), allowing developers to use any technology stack they prefer for building the front-end of the site. The back-end acts as an API with its only purpose being to serve content from the database. There are CMS options like Contentful, Payload, and Strapi that are built to be headless. Popular traditional CMS’s like Craft CMS and WordPress also offer headless variants.

The Restaurant Analogy

Let’s simplify things a bit more and look at the decision using an analogy; a restaurant.

Traditional Restaurant (Traditional CMS)

Imagine a restaurant where the kitchen and dining room are connected. The chefs cook the food, and the waitstaff serve it directly to the customers in the same building. This setup means that everything is closely integrated, and the kitchen (back-end) is tightly coupled to the dining experience (front-end). Picture a scenario where the restaurant decides to change from table service to buffet style. The food now needs to be prepared in advance and delivered to the front of house in a different way, potentially even requiring new equipment. The restaurant needs to be reconfigured to not only accommodate the buffet but also to interface with the kitchen differently. Because the restaurant and kitchen are coupled, both sides would require work in order to accommodate a shift in strategy. 

Ghost Kitchen (Headless CMS)

Now, think of a ghost (or cloud) kitchen where food is prepared centrally but can be delivered to various locations or dining experiences. The kitchen (back-end) focuses solely on cooking (content creation and management) and doesn't worry about where the food is served. Instead, the meals (content) can be delivered to different endpoints like food trucks, home deliveries, or partner restaurants (or in our case websites, mobile apps, etc.). This separation allows more flexibility in how and where the content is delivered without changing the core cooking process. If a new experience requires new equipment or processes, the kitchen can be expanded without affecting the front-end experience.

When to Use a Headless CMS

Omni-Channel Content Delivery 

If you consistently need to deliver content across multiple platforms (websites, mobile apps, IoT devices), a headless CMS is ideal because it can serve the same content through APIs to any front-end. The front-end can be swapped out without any need for development to the back-end.

Scalability and Flexibility

If you want the ability to keep your content management system up-to-date independently of the presentation layer, a headless CMS can allow for more agile and scalable development. This could be especially useful if you anticipate needing to redesign or update parts of the front-end frequently without affecting the back-end content.

Front-end Framework Preferences

Maybe your team has developers who are very proficient in a particular JavaScript framework, like Next.js, SvelteKit, or Astro. The time needed to learn a new templating language could push you past your deadline. Maybe you have some cool interactive interface in mind? A headless CMS can provide the raw content for your developers to build highly custom, tailor-made front-ends in whatever language or framework they please.

Security

Going headless can offer security advantages due to its decoupled nature. By communicating via API to the front-end, data access can be controlled more granularly. Because the back-end is only responsible for content management and delivery, fewer plugins are typically used which means a smaller chance of vulnerabilities due to third-party software.

Hosting & Infrastructure

A cloud-based headless CMS offers additional advantages over a self-hosted headless CMS. It can simplify maintenance and operating costs since the cloud provider is responsible for updates and security of the platform. Cloud-based solutions like Strapi Cloud often come with integrated security features, automatic backups, and disaster recovery options.

Which will you choose?

While the flexibility and security a headless CMS offers may be great benefits, it may not be necessary for every project and could even introduce complexity. It’s important to consider the long-term purpose of the project and who will be responsible for maintaining it as well as authoring content. If your primary focus is on managing and delivering content in a structured manner with rapid development, a traditional CMS can be an excellent choice. But if you feel any of the examples I’ve laid out above align with your project’s requirements then a headless CMS may be right for you! 

Whatever route you take, remember that both Craft CMS and WordPress can be used in traditional or headless applications and are a fine choice either way! Now you know the differences between a traditional and headless CMS, and an informed decision can be made. If you have more questions or a project you think could benefit from a traditional or headless CMS, we’d love to help!

Concept testing is a research method that explores how a user perceives or interacts with a new idea. It usually takes place early in a project, and involves putting ideas into the “real world” to see how users will react to them.

Not every project needs to include concept testing, but it can make your solutions more user-centered. Involving users in the design process leads to products, sites, and experiences that are more aligned with user wants and needs — and ultimately more successful.

Concept testing is most useful when exploring ideas that are novel, complex, or risky. It can also help your team:

• Generate more purposeful, user-centered ideas.
• Identify which ideas provide the greatest value to users. 
• Prioritize the most promising idea(s), saving time and money.
• Evaluate any significant changes you make along the way.

I’ll cover how we use concept testing at Viget to help our clients gain clarity and develop user-centered solutions. 

This article will be part of a three-part series focused on concept testing. First, we’ll focus on planning out your concept testing. 

Form a clear plan

A successful concept test has a well-defined plan at its foundation from the start. At Viget, we work with clients to define what you want to learn, and who you want to learn from. 

Let’s imagine that you and your team are redesigning an online food delivery platform, and you have some new concepts that you want to test to see if they resonate with users.   

Focus on what you want to learn.

Start by defining research objectives. Think of these objectives as your north stars that will guide you and your team. You’ll use these for initial alignment, and then to frame what the prototype needs to do, and what feedback you really need.

You can create a strong set of objectives by asking:

• What initially sparked the motivation to test?
• Where do you have the most uncertainty about your concept?
• What are the key things you need to know through testing?

Teams usually have a lot of questions, and feel pressure to answer all of them at once. Resist the pressure! Instead, focus on the most pressing and critical — it will allow you to dive deeper into the most important areas in a session. Otherwise, you may not have the depth you need to move forward when you finish the testing.

Let’s say you've developed new solutions that span the whole user journey of online food delivery. You could spend a whole research session asking questions that cover all that breadth, but you would get much more depth by focusing on one particular moment in the journey, like the online ordering experience.

Think about who you want to talk to (and be holistic).

If you aren’t intentional about who you test with, you can end up with feedback that may not be applicable. Ideally, you’re talking to existing customers or people who would use the website or product in the future. Look at behaviors, like whether they’ve used a competitor, or hold specific sentiments, when recruiting participants. Perhaps you’re trying to expand your audience for your new food delivery app, so you may want to talk to people who cook at home frequently as well. 

Don’t forget to think holistically. Consider every person who might interact with this solution, from beginning to end, and who might be affected by it. For your new app, you'll want to test with the diner, but your solutions may also affect the restaurant host/hostess, cooks and cashier’s workflows for example. So you may need to capture their perspectives. 

Opinions aren’t strong evidence.

You may gravitate towards seeking preferences or opinions about your concepts (i.e., “which concept is better?”). But rather than focusing on which concept users like most, it’s more important to uncover user behavior. Preference-centric concept testing won’t teach you about how someone might actually interact with this concept. 

For instance, you’ll learn much more about which new concepts for online food ordering are most beneficial to users if you ask about how they might use it in a scenario. Or even better, you actually have them interact with each one.   

Questions like the ones below will give you stronger indications of user behavior:

• When was the last time you used [the competitor]?
• How might this concept fit into your day to day?
• How would you accomplish this task with the concept?

Avoid asking questions like “Which concept is better?” or “which one do you prefer?” Instead ask why one concept has advantages or disadvantages over another for a user, or how they actually envision it in their daily life. 

Even if the focus of the test is on preference (as is the case for branding or marketing research) it’s still helpful to dive deeper into what a user feels the design is communicating to them and why that prompts a specific reaction.

These key strategies that I’ve covered should get you a jump-start for successfully planning out your first concept test.

In the next article in the series, I'll dive into prototyping.

This is part two of a three-part series on how to successfully conduct concept testing with users, focused on prototyping. Check out part one (planning) to learn more.
 

Prototype your concepts

Once a well-aligned research plan has been crafted, it’s time to create a prototype (or multiple) based on your concept. There are a plethora of ways you can create prototypes that communicate your concepts to users; I’ll cover strategies that will help spark meaningful reactions and conversation.

Provide context to ground your concept

We humans as a whole are poor predictors of our own future behaviors, so it’s really important that your concept testing simulates the future experience you’re trying to test. Ideally, you want to ground your concepts, so a participant can envision it in their own day-to-day. One of the best ways to do this is by building in context, whether into the prototype itself or in the way you actually test out the concepts.

You can ground a participant in what they would actually do by: 

• Adding small contextual details into the prototype (e.g. the participant’s name or location). 
• Providing the participant with a realistic scenario to frame the prototypes
• Designing a certain scenario into the actual prototype (e.g. error messages appear in).  
• Conducting the test in the actual or simulated environment where it will be used. 

Grounding a participant can make a difference in how someone interacts with your prototype. Let’s imagine you and your team are redesigning a part of an online food delivery platform for restaurants, specifically the parts that hosts and cashiers use. When you put your concept to the test, you can ground participants by “simulating” a lunch rush atmosphere (distractions, loud noises, etc).

Build real-ish prototypes

It might sound counterintuitive but you don’t need high-fidelity prototypes for concept testing. While high-fidelity prototypes may best simulate the future experience, that level of fidelity may not be feasible for a few reasons: 

• You don’t have the time to create something at that level of detail or complexity before testing.
• You don’t have the details fleshed out yet.
• You want your users to help define these details with you. 

Low to mid-fidelity (or as I like to call “real-ish”) prototypes can still get you to the insights you need and even have some unexpected benefits. It’s easier for research participants to focus on overarching concepts when interacting with low-fidelity prototypes. Higher fidelity prototypes tend to invoke feedback hyper-focused on the details. With lower-fidelity, research participants are more likely to provide critical feedback on ideas, since they don’t seem as “final.” You can also leave out certain details in a low-fidelity concept, which allows you to brainstorm with participants.

Again, crafting context is a large part of building out an idea that starts to feel “real” enough for a user to invoke a response. Some examples of real-ish prototypes with just enough context include: 

• Setting the stage with realistic scenarios for how and when research participants would reach out to an AI chat bot in a therapy app.
• Creating initial wireframes for a ride-sharing app that research participants test out in a simulated car ride experience, to understand what info is most helpful at each moment on the ride.
• Sending research participants “updates” on their food delivery order, to learn what participants might want to know about their order’s progress. 

Be selective about which concepts to show

You may have several concepts (or variations on a single concept) that you want to prototype out, and test through research. They may all feel exciting and important, but showing too many in one session can leave a research participant with decision fatigue. Even if you need to test multiple concepts to move forward, you don’t want to show every single one you’ve come up with.

Instead, you’ll want to be selective. One way to help you decide which concepts are best to test is by mapping them out on a matrix.

Let’s imagine again you and your team have generated multiple concepts for your food delivery app that aim to tempt users to order takeout more frequently. Perhaps some concepts focus on individualized recommendations, while other concepts show social trends. First, create a matrix that has extreme aspects of the concepts on each end and place them where you think they might belong. 

Then, ask yourself a few questions: 

• Are there two concepts that are too similar to each other? 
• Is this concept playing it too safe?

These kinds of concepts may not give you useful feedback because they’re not distinct enough or they’re too neutral over all. Instead, you’ll want to select concepts that are on the edges of your extremes. Those concepts will allow you to learn much more about your users and how they might interact with your concepts in the future.

These tips will help you craft prototypes that research participants can more easily and accurately react to. 

To end this series, I’ll discuss how to prepare for the actual testing in my next article.