content management system for csu libraries website
DESCRIPTION
Content Management System for CSU Libraries Website. Greg Vogl Research and Development Services University Libraries Wednesday, November 11, 2009. Overview. Needs Benefits and Costs Why a CMS Now? Selection Criteria Recommendation Implementation Plan. Content Management Problems. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Content Management System for CSU Libraries
WebsiteGreg Vogl
Research and Development ServicesUniversity Libraries
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
2
Needs Benefits and Costs Why a CMS Now? Selection Criteria Recommendation Implementation Plan
Overview
3
Over 10,000 pages, 5,000 folders, 50,000 files Presentation is not fully separated from content Web authors need extensive technical skills Existing admin tools are home-grown and limited Maintenance is time-consuming and error-prone
Content Management Problems
4
Few staff members add or edit content Content is not organized, consistent, up to date Quality and consistency of presentation is weak Site seems static, neglected, complex,
unappealing 10% decline in site visits in 2009 vs. 2008
Consequences
5
Existing CMS systems◦ Wikis, Blogs, LibGuides
Observations◦ More dynamic pages are being created and
viewed◦ More authors are active
Conclusions◦ Dynamic Web pages are replacing static ones◦ Most staff prefer creating them◦ Processes and tools affect product quality◦ Automated content management saves staff time
CSU Libraries Experience with CMS
6
WYSIWYG editor◦ No need for advanced HTML or CSS skills◦ No need for Dreamweaver or FrontPage◦ No wiki syntax to learn◦ Can paste content from a word processor
Edit content from any networked PC◦ Staff can change content immediately◦ No waiting for Web staff to upload content◦ Upload many types of documents and files
Easier Web Authoring
7
Better content management tools◦ Workflows – assure key pages are reviewed◦ Version history – view and roll back changes
Better admin tools◦ User and permissions management◦ Global search and replace - URLs, Web authors
Remix content◦ No redundant copies of information◦ Form data, RSS feeds, A-Z, sitemap, breadcrumbs
Efficiency and Quality Assurance
8
Content providers Content editors/publishers Template designers Software developers System administrators
Specialization of Roles
9
Separation of concerns◦ Content/presentation, data/business logic
Visual consistency◦ Page layout, formatting, navigation◦ Each page must choose a template
More findable, usable, accessible ◦ Easier compliance with Web standards◦ Easier Search Engine Optimization
Appearance
10
What◦ Participation, information sharing, collaboration◦ Form a learning community (social constructivism)
Who - Libraries staff, CSU, community, world How
◦ Forms, comments & suggestions, surveys, polls◦ Wikis, blogs, news feeds, events calendars◦ Discussion forums, chat rooms, mailings, photos◦ Personalization, tags, ratings, reviews
Caution - Some may be a waste of time
Communication Features (Web 2.0)
11
Hardware – minimal◦ Robust server with sufficient power and storage
Software - minimal◦ CMS, OS, Web server, database
Staff Time - depends◦ Software: install, develop, administer, maintain◦ Design: visual, structural, functional, policy◦ Content migration◦ Libraries staff training
Costs
12
Degraded performance and security Overly uniform appearance Inflexibility Increased complexity (site, code, workflows) More information silos More content and authors to manage Increased staff time (authors, technical) Lower overall content quality
Risks
13
Charge◦ 4. Create new models for an information access portal,
including on-line and self-service capabilities for assistance with reference materials, enhanced global search, and discovery tools, etc.
Findings◦ 4. There are too many, alternative ways to access too much
information in different formats with disparate interfaces. Recommendations
◦ 2. Embark aggressively upon digital initiatives, to ‘leap frog’ emerging trends.
◦ 2d. Provide easier, more use friendly user access to the multitude of disparate materials available through CSU Libraries.
IT Task Force
14
4 years of CMS research and discussion◦ CMS systems are now mature, stable, usable◦ Many libraries and businesses now use a CMS◦ Usable website is critical to CSUL mission and
goals◦ The more we wait, the more content we have
CSU Libraries Website is being redesigned◦ Content will need to be migrated anyway◦ Opportunity to clean up/redesign old content
Why a CMS Now?
15
Free or relatively low cost Maturity, stability, performance Flexible open-source development framework Ease of use
◦ Good match for expertise of technical staff◦ Installation, configuration, customization◦ Integration with existing systems/apps◦ Edit and manage many content types◦ Manage users, roles and workflows◦ Documentation and support
Selection Criteria
16
Commercial◦ Microsoft SharePoint◦ Adobe Contribute◦ CSU Department of Web Communications
Open Source◦ Drupal (PHP/MySQL)◦ Joomla! (PHP/MySQL)◦ Plone (Python)◦ Alfresco (Java)
Strongest Candidate Systems
17
Mature (created in 2001)◦ Rich in features, documentation and support
Free, open source, Web-based◦ Linux or Windows, Apache or IIS, PHP 5, MySQL◦ No added hardware or software costs
Many Drupal online resources for Libraries◦ Used by over 30 academic libraries, e.g. Arizona ◦ Discussed at library conferences and online
groups◦ Many library-specific modules and uses
Recommendation: Drupal
18
Efficiency◦ WYSIWYG editor, templates, forms, friendly URLs◦ Breadcrumbs, search, A-Z, sitemap
Quality Assurance◦ LDAP authentication, user roles, workflows◦ Version history, statistics
Communication and Collaboration◦ Forms, comments, surveys, polls, quizzes, captcha◦ Blogs, FAQ, events, calendar, scheduling, RSS feeds◦ Forums, chat, mass mailings, photos◦ Favorites, profiles
Drupal Features
19
Create working prototype◦ Install Drupal 6 and key modules on a local server◦ Create templates based on new design ◦ Add navigation structure and pilot content◦ Release a test site to the public by January 2010
Upgrade to Drupal 7 (expected early 2010) Migrate remaining content Libraries staff training in summer 2010 Install on main Web server by mid-July 2010
Initial Implementation Plan
20
Planning Design Simplicity Communication Feedback Training and Support Buy-in and Participation
Keys to Successful Implementation
21
Questions, Comments, Concerns