Website Re-Design Planning Document (010702)
Contents
I. Statement of Need
a. Current organization
b. Proposed Organization
c. Overseers
II. Content Management
III. Phases
IV. Timeline
V. Roles and responsibility
VI. Sustainability/Evaluation
I. Statement of Need
The
The way in which information is passed from overseers to the web
administrator is not efficient, as is the creation and assignment of overseer
responsibilities. In addition, the
existing graphic design of the site has not been updated for seen
only minor improvements in over three years.[MAC2]
The re-design of the
Current Site Structure
The existing site structure is a flat representation that is not conducive to an efficient flow of information. There are over 300 root level sites and growing. Root level sites are defined as sites that exist independent of their institutional hierarchy and reside within the main website directory. (Example: www.marshall.edu/example where “example” would be a root level site.)
Proposed Structure
The proposed structure [MAC3]would
more resemble a pyramid, rather than a flat, broad cluster of sites.
The structure would be organized by academic department and administrative departments with exceptions as decided by the Electronic Publishing Oversight Committee (EPOC).
Web Overseers
[MAC4]Currently,
to be a web overseer, a faculty or staff member of to individuals within their file
structureto add/remove users with editing permission from the site
group, which does not have to be approved by the web administrator. Individuals
are given access to their site on the
II. Content Management
There is a definite need for the
management of content within the 12 16 Gb [MAC5]in
file size, including redundant usage of university approved logos and redundant
information pages for a total of 3,000 unique web pages. By implementing a
content management system, this problem would be solved. Also, a content
management system would allow for a single access point to web content on the
John Savory (Web Administrator), Matt Christian (Director, Center for Instructional Technology), David Johnson (Executive Director of Distributed Education Technology), and Allen Taylor (Research and Implementation) are reviewing content management software to ease the management of the site[MAC6]. To qualify for further research, vendors must meet the following requirements: exist outside of the production server on a staging server; allow for customizing style of web pages and direct manipulation of production server content; allow integration with ADS; provide for several user access levels; create a workflow that would make web publishing more efficient; and be cost effective. We have eliminated Terradon Communications from the already short list of vendors. The biggest obstacle to overcome is based upon implementation within an institution of higher education as opposed to use in an enterprise environment. The other top vendors being considered are Microsoft, RedDot, and Omni Update. Before a purchase decision will be made, a full presentation will be delivered to EPOC, Dr. Jan Fox (VP of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer) and other appropriate committees before a final decision will be made.
III. Phases to Implementation
Here are the phases for the implementation of the website re-design:
1. Server Preparation & Cluster Testing
2. Content Management
3. Re-organization of Content and Management
4. Design of Templates
Server Preparation & Cluster Testing
The
first phase is directly dependent upon support from the Systems staff. The
Systems Staff and John Savory have been working closely together since the
middle of the fall 2001 semester on implementing the new server configuration.
This phase requires testing of the various networking methods to support the
server cluster. There are 3 options for operating the server cluster: Fail
Over, Network Load Balancing, and Windows Clustering. The desired option is
using the Windows 2000 Server Clustering, which is a built-in feature of
Windows 2000 Server, but has never been implemented on a web server at
IV. Content Management
Phase 2 can be started without the Electronic Publishing Oversight Committee (EPOC), but EPOC wishes to review final choices for vendor. Again, the vendors will be presented to Dr. Fox as well.
V. Re-Organization of Content and Site Management
Phases 3 and 4 will need EPOC
approval before final implementation. Phase 3 began prior to
Design of Templates
For Phase 4, John Savory will submit to EPOC three potential site designs for EPOC to recommend for implementation. Each design will be tested for usability by a focus group comprised of students, faculty, and staff. Each design will be Section 508 compliant and optimize for the prior 2 browser releases as per ITC policy. Each design will also feature variants and style guides to provide a choice for web developers and allow for a controlled level of customization by the web editors. The variants will be encouraged for usage based upon the type of site being created (academic versus recruitment, etc.) After EPOC makes its recommendations, the new site will be uploaded to the new server cluster prior to the start of Fall Semester 2002.
Timeline
The slated launch of the
re-designed
Here is the proposed timeline and list of delegated responsibilities.
|
TASK |
RESPONSIBILITY |
COMPLETION DATE |
|
Server Preparation |
CIT/Systems |
March 2002 |
|
Content Management Software |
CIT/EPOC/IT Strategic Planning Committee (?) |
March 2002 (If bid will be required, otherwise February 2002) |
|
Re-Organization of Existing Content |
EPOC Sub-committee |
April 2002 |
|
Site Management Issues |
EPOC Sub-committee/Deans and Department Heads |
April 2002 |
|
Template Design |
CIT |
May 2002 |
|
Focus Groups/Usability Testing |
EPOC |
June 2002 |
|
New Site Testing |
EPOC & Testing Groups |
July 2002 |
|
Web Publishing Training |
CIT |
July 2002 |
|
Site Upload/Re-Launch |
CIT |
August 2002 |
Sustainability & Evaluation
With the content management system in place, the website should be reviewed and evaluated every two years. EPOC will conduct focus groups and internal reviews to determine what, if any changes should be made to the organization or the graphic design of the site. With a content management solution, the site will be more sustainable than in its current state. Web overseers will be narrowed down, while adding the flexibility for the overseers to add editors as needed.