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