1 / 21

Content Management System for CSU Libraries Website

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.

usoa
Download Presentation

Content Management System for CSU Libraries Website

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Content Management System for CSU Libraries Website Greg Vogl Research and Development Services University Libraries Wednesday, November 11, 2009

  2. Overview • Needs • Benefits and Costs • Why a CMS Now? • Selection Criteria • Recommendation • Implementation Plan

  3. Content Management Problems • 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

  4. Consequences • 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

  5. CSU Libraries Experience with CMS • 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

  6. Easier Web Authoring • 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

  7. Efficiency and Quality Assurance • 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

  8. Specialization of Roles • Content providers • Content editors/publishers • Template designers • Software developers • System administrators

  9. Appearance • 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

  10. Communication Features (Web 2.0) • 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

  11. Costs • 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

  12. Risks • 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

  13. IT Task Force • 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.

  14. Why a CMS Now? • 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

  15. Selection Criteria • 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

  16. Strongest Candidate Systems • Commercial • Microsoft SharePoint • Adobe Contribute • CSU Department of Web Communications • Open Source • Drupal (PHP/MySQL) • Joomla! (PHP/MySQL) • Plone (Python) • Alfresco (Java)

  17. Recommendation: Drupal • 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

  18. DrupalFeatures • 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

  19. Initial Implementation Plan • 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

  20. Keys to Successful Implementation • Planning • Design • Simplicity • Communication • Feedback • Training and Support • Buy-in and Participation

  21. Questions, Comments, Concerns

More Related