Web Advisory Meeting

September 11, 2008

Present:

Allan Bell, Andrew Smith, Clint MacDonald, Eva Grabinski, Geoff !McBoyle, Guillermo Fuentes, Isaac Morland, Karen Jack, Kelley Teahen, Kevin Paxman, Marlon Griffith, Mary Lynn Benninger, Megan McDermott, Michelle Douglas-Mills, Paul Snyder (chair), Tammy Marcinko, Terry Stewart

Regrets:

David Bean, Pat Lafranier Sarah Forgrave, Sean Van Koughnett, Toby Day-Hamilton, Mary Jane Jennings

1. Opening remarks

  1. Approval of the agenda

  2. Welcome to Clint !MacDonald representing Mathematics

  3. Approval of the minutes of July 21

  4. Information items

Brief update on the branding initiative from Kelly; Waterloo has great recognition in Ontario, less so in other provinces. It also has a great reputation with those who know it.

  1.  Report of the Web Content Management Systems subgroup:

Eva provided an overview of project goal, members, Content Management System (CMS) definition, benefits and risks, recommendations and proposed charter. The following is a summary of comments from the committee.

* Principles for Web Content Management * “business environment” – is there a better word of that – suggest eliminate the word “business” * search engine optimization is another advantage – ability to add metadata keywords and also have a larger text base for searching * agreed it is important factor – was discussed in our meetings * CMS Maintenance Model * People want to see what the page will look like (WYSIWYG). * Many CMSs have a preview capability. This would be an important requirement. * Some content management systems will allow you to edit right on the page. Some universities found that WYSIWYG editors are not well received. * Website Management Technologies at Canadian Universities * Who are the big boys doing it? * Toronto a different case since it’s so large. * Some (University of British Columbia (UBC), Dalhousie, Calgary) are using a CMS; others are not yet doing so. * Why Universities Moved to a CMS * Do they want to do it again (i.e. was there need to repeat the implementation) * No – but a few were doing it over again * Western implemented early CMS (2000) and looking at moving to another one * Suggest change comment to read that it was good. * CMS Inapplicability at University of Waterloo * Is there a 5th point about collaboration tools – e.g. Sharepoint * Math is looking at having a faculty-wide Wiki system – can put a Common Look and Feel (CLF) on top of the Wiki – there are systems that will allow you to take templates out of the CMS and implement in the Wiki. * Not clear why the Wiki would not be considered a collaboration tool * It is a grey area – could be implemented into the CMS. Depends on how a Wiki and blog are being used whether or not they would be provided in the CMS. * Scenario C: Mixed Environment * Learning a new Web maintenance environment is often a challenge for non-technical staff. Having a common CMS will reduce this problem. * Recommended Scenario * Can understand those not willing to buy into a CMS, but if willing to buy into the concept of a CMS, why not buy into a centralized CMS. * One of the key assumptions going into this exercise was that the decentralized culture of the university would be conserved. This strategy supported as a good thing. * Can you still share content if decentralized? T here are systems that allow central management of content where deliver allows less centralized. Easier to have content centrally and push out to hubs than to have original content in hubs and share across other hubs. * Some level of sharing can be achieved through support for standards (e.g. RSS) * Recommendation is selection and support of single solution – not 6-8 different software solutions. * Recommendations: * Suggest Recommendation 4 (needs assessment) is listed first. * Technology and needs assessment will happen concurrently before selection. * Questions and Comments: * Looking at other universities – at least half had a custom based system. Would like to see whether or not if you are considering custom built systems. Committee feels we should not build our own. Alberta moving to an in house system to a commercial solution. * Suggestion that “they would do it again” was ambiguous. * Should we address the library? There are other systems they use, but the library is more than willing to play in the CMS sandbox. * Did the committee talk about staffing at other universities - what are the staffing requirements? * Expectation that saving in staff times is offset by effectiveness and cost benefit. * How long to do the conversion: 1- 2 years for selection and migration at some Universities. Dependent to a large degree on the leadership support. University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine took 3 years. * Centralized vs Decentralized – comment that we are too decentralized. * Faculty of Environment not always unhappy with the Dreamweaver/Contribute model - Library agrees but solution far from optimal. Dislike lack of ability to make universal changes. * What is Adobe’s position – No, contribute is not a CMS. * Could you recommend eventual stopping of support of Dreamweaver at the university? * Suggest that we can still use tools like Dreamweaver to create html for special design requirements but Contribute would probably disappear. * What do you want from University Committee on Information Systems and Technology (UCIST)? What is the next stage? Support for recommendations and approval and resources to go ahead to the next project. * Do we know the cost? After needs assessment and technology assessment, recommended solution and then come back to the UCIST. * Also clear to the committee that leadership support will be required if this is to be successful (deans, associate deans). * Needs to be a parallel process of how to publish but need to also improve the type of content and what we publish. * Has there ever been a standardization for content – e.g. renewal of content – as you migrate renewal benefit is unlimited. * At what point do you offer technology vs content development training. * Support from a content expert centrally to help improve content delivery. * Will the next group moving forward be a subcommittee of this committee? Yes, but could have more members outside of this committee. * Does Web Advisory support the recommendations of the CMS subcommittee. Consensus that committee supports recommendations. One dissenting option that a single solution may not meet requirements of each constituency.

  1. Web Search Engine subcommittee

* Committee recommends that acquisition of the Google Appliance would improve search results. * However, it would take considerable effort to make effective of the appliance beyond its basic functionality. * We also don’t have a good understanding of the length of time it may take Google to reflect a change in our Web space. * Considering the effort required by the CMS investigation, do we have this time? * Suggestion and general consensus that we continue to gather information but not make the pitch for acquisition of the appliance at this time.