Web Advisory Committee (WAC) Meeting

Dana Porter Library 428, Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 10:30-noon

Attendees:

Allan Bell, Kelley Teahen, Sean Van Koughnett, Mary Lynn Benninger, Penny Pudifin, Tammy Marcinko, Pat Lafranier, Geoff McBoyle (chair), Terry Stewart, Guillermo Fuentes, Eva Grabinski, Marlon Griffith, Jaymis Goertz, Andrew Smith, Karen Jack, MaryJane Jennings,Sarah Forgrave,Megan McDermott.

Regrets:

Brenda MacDonald, Kevin Paxman, Gary Ridley, Cu Truong, Donald Duff-McCracken, Isaac Morland, Michelle Douglas-Mills

1. Opening discussion

  • Agenda proposed – passed.

2. Information items

3. Minutes

4. Sub-group reports

Navigation Sub-Group (Terry Stewart)

Two meetings: Oct 29 and Nov 14

Oct 29th Meeting

    • welcomed Megan to group
    • divided up first 3 tasks: 1. review current navigation description in Common Look and feel (CLF) documentation (Megan); 2. review current navigation practices at University of Waterloo; 3. review current navigation practices at other institutions (Issac-University of Waterloo; Megan-Canada and USA Universities; Jason-other university/colleges; MaryLynn-corporations/banks, etc; Sarah-tech sites)
    • developed a list of navigation methods and examples
    • Sarah shared spreadsheet from previous project
    • review of government regulations with respect to navigation (Megan)
    • Megan shared award-winning sites for review

November 14th Meeting

Review of navigation in CLF document:

    • not very comprehensive
    • not a lot of guidance (ie. 5-7 items, meaningful text...)
    • some guidance for faculty - most adhering
    • less guidance for departments - not necessarily adhering
    • no third level defined
    • discussion: short term versus long term. Should rewrite for CLF or do long term based research.

Review of Other University Sites (mostly Canadian) - Megan

    • didn't seem like many sites had put a lot of serious thought into it
    • most used vertical & horizontal menus together; often multiple horizontal menus
    • breadcrumbs common
    • most sites tend to segment early on (exception was New York University with no audience groups)

Review of Other Sites - Mary Lynn

    • bank sites interesting
    • more holistic approach
    • less guidance for departments - not necessarily adhering
    • no third level defined
    • "are we segmenting too much"

Other interesting points mentioned:

    • one campus web server for all
    • communicate among maintainers e.g. how do we know when changes occur?
    • training for the web
    • common horizontal navigation across all pages
    • where does Content Management System (CMS) fit in?

Web Content Management Sub-group (Sean Van Koughnett)

Goal is to investigate web content management relating to the issues of content, training, and governance.

The purpose of the first meeting, held on Nov. 2nd, of the Content Management Subgroup was to identify the major issues that impact content management in the University of Waterloo webspace.

Four key interrelated issues were identified: leadership, resources, competency, technology

Leadership and resources:

When the web first “arrived” at University of Waterloo well over a decade ago, it was viewed as an add-on to traditional methods of communicating to our stakeholders. Since then, the web has risen in prominence to be (arguably) the most important communication tool we have. However, in many cases the resources allocated to web management appear still to be allocated as if the web is an “add-on” communication tool rather than one of primary importance. The result of this resource deficiency is an overall webspace of uneven quality.

A few possible reasons behind the resource issue: * Those with influence over budgets do not recognize the importance of the web in the university’s overall communication efforts, and thus do not allocate the resources needed. * Those with influence over budgets recognize the importance of the web, but have decided that other priorities take precedence. * Those with influence over budgets recognize the importance of the web, but underestimate the resources needed to manage it well.

The subgroup concluded that the level of awareness needs to be raised with leadership on the importance of the web and on the resources required for proper web infrastructure and support.

Resources and competency

Given the resource issue, the management of the webspace in many (especially smaller) units ends up being delegated to someone whose primary job is not the web.

In some cases, web courses are taken by these individuals but because the knowledge gained from this training is used infrequently, these courses are of little use. In other cases, individuals simply don’t enroll in courses and they cite a lack of time as the main. Lastly, in some cases the courses cover a wide range of material when the needs of the individual are much more narrow and simple.

Regardless, many of those who have been given the task of managing their unit’s website feel uncomfortable with the technology and unsure of themselves due to their competency gap.

Competency and technology

Because Dreamweaver was the first on the scene at University of Waterloo, it has become the established content management tool for the majority of the units across campus.

However, Dreamweaver is not the most user-friendly tool to use, which exacerbates the competency gap. (Contribute is much easier.)

Given the difficulty of mastering an application like Dreamweaver for those who are infrequent, non-technical users, a suggestion was made that additional resources should be provided from Information Systems and Technology (IST) (ie a “wandering web team), to support the efforts of the smaller units across campus.

The discussion evolved to consider other solutions to this issue: namely, the implementation of more user friendly, open source Content Management Systems, such as Drupal (plus modules), WordPress and Plone, as well as commercial CMS that would allow the novice/infrequent user to more easily update content without requiring much additional training or support.

Other Notes: we briefly discussed what some of the other larger units across campus are doing to deal with some of the issues identified above: * Library: using CMS to reduce duplicated content; with new associate librarian (Allan Bell), the web has become a higher priority. * Arts: Arts Computing Office (ACO) has offered customized training for Contribute users in their faculty; discussion about how there is administrative buy in from associate dean of computing * Math: once people have taken the Dreamweaver courses, they are given special training customized to content manager; uses Dreamweaver, but all users are updating snippets of code (SSI) rather than actual assembled pages. Templates are not accessible to modified by content managers.

Suggestions for next steps:

  1. Survey the web content managers on campus to find out who is using CMS (and what they are using)
  2. Investigate the pros/cons of CMS and the pros/cons of our current system

Audience Research Sub-Group (Allan Bell)

The Audience Research Sub-Group met on November 12. Our discussion was guided by a blog posting that asked “What makes a good university homepage?”

  1. Clear pathways to further information
  2. An uncluttered interface that serves only the users, not the wishes of every group on campus with a website that wants a link.
  3. Clear and consistent branding
  4. Pleasing graphic design that appeals to the largest target audience group of the page without alienating other groups completely

How to design a homepage:

  1. Identify your audiences and place them in a hierarchy of importance
  2. Develop a clear idea as to why these audiences are coming to the site and prioritise their tasks
  3. Reflect the strategic goals of the university while illustrating an image of the University
  4. Wrap it all in a graphic design which appeals to your largest user base, while not alienating other small user groups

We began the exercise with the first task: Identifying our audiences and placing them into a hierarchy:

1. Future/Prospective students

  • grades 9-12 students domestic
  • teachers and guidance counsellors
  • parents
  • transfers from other universities
  • prospective grad students
  • mature students
  • continuing education/ distance education
  • grade-school students

2. Current students

  • undergraduate
  • graduate
  • co-op students on co op
  • continuing education/ distance education

3. International outreach

  • students – recruitment
  • activities
  • research
  • faculty – recruitment

4. Alumni and other former students

  • parents
  • co-op employers
  • donors (potential and actual)

5. Faculty

  • Professors + lecturers
  • Instructors
  • TAs
  • Visiting scholars
  • Post docs

6. Staff and administration

7. Job seekers (both faculty and staff)

8. Job providers/employers for students and graduates

9. Faculty, staff and administrators from other universities

10. Parents of current students

11. University of Waterloo retirees

12. Community members

  • Local government
  • Local businesses and community groups
  • Regional residents interested in campus activities, including families bringing children for camps

13. Partners

  • Businesses (beyond local)
  • Granting organizations
  • Consortium members

14. Media

  • local
  • national
  • international

15. Donors (beyond alumni)

  • Prospective donors
  • Current donors
  • Past donors

16. Prospective community members (people thinking of moving to the area)

17. Vendors selling to the university

  • Preferred vendors
  • Travel companies
  • Affinity partners

18. Web developers from other universities looking for inspiration for their own home page redesign

19. Miscellany visitors

The list confirms that our audience is diverse, different depending on the department/faculty and that having an articulated strategy for both the University and departmental/faculty web presences are key to being able to move forward to prioritizing the lists. Kelley organized the audiences informed by the 6th Decade Plan as the latest strategy document for the University. However, the “pillars” of Waterloo's 6th Decade Plan are similar to what many other universities are pursuing: growth in grad, research and international; making sure not to neglect undergraduate studies in the process. So she also tried to identify what makes Waterloo different and stand out from others. Kelley’s documents will be further discussed at our next meeting in light of the original goals of the subgroup.

CLF Definition Sub-Group (Pat Lafranier)

    • Three meetings to date: Oct 11, Oct 24, Nov 15.
    • Discussion continues about the various elements of the CLF. Creating a table that summarizes what can change now (short term) and what needs to wait (long term).
    • Eva Grabinski has joined the group.

5. Overview of CPS and CMS

  • Allan Bell said someone from the Library could give a brief overview at the next meeting.
  • Isaac Morland and Gary Ridley were absent so their presentations are postponed until the next meeting.

6. Google Analytics - demo

  • Google Analystics currently being used by Office of Research, Library, Science and CPA.
  • Allan will make arrangements for a demo of Google Analytics at our next meeting. He will make the necessary projection setup arrangements in the room.

7. Web Committees on Campus - what are they?

  • Sarah asked about the various web committees on campus (Web Steering, WebOps...). Confusion as to their membership and mandate. Pat will summarize for December's meeting.

8. Final Reports from Sub-Groups - when?

  • Discussion ensued. Consensus is Feb 15th availability and ready for discussion at February meeting. Recommendations can be taken to UCIST after approval. Further discussion at December meeting when Paul returns.

9. Next Meeting

  • Thursday, December 13, 8:30am-10am, Dana Porter Library 428

-- Pat Lafranier - 26 Nov 2007