2009-02-02

1

Eric Bungay

OLA Super Conference 2009

January 31st, 2009

MLIS from McGill in 1999

◦ Undergraduate degrees in Science, English,

Education

Designing Web sites for 10 years

Professional Associate at McGill‟s School of

Information Studies from 1999 to 2006.

◦ Designed and taught course “Web System Design &

Management”

At University of Guelph since September 2006

o Part of Web coordination team:

• Web content coordinator

• Web site coordinator

o Design philosophy

o Strict XHTML 1.1 or bust

o Put the user first

Two years in concept

◦ Environmental scan

◦ Card sorting

◦ Feedback from library staff

Non-intuitiveness of Web site

◦ Nomenclature, navigation

Disjoint between content and users

Look and feel was less important but site was

considered drab

Make site engaging, intuitive, fresh

Enhance interactivity, encourage community building

Streamline navigation

Make more consistent

Enhance content – write for Web

Make more accessible – WCAG guidelines

Adhere to W3C coding specifications – XHTML 1.1, CSS 2

Improve management of site

Improve “look & feel”

2009-02-02

2

… improve the functionality, architecture,

navigation, design and “look and feel” of the

University of Guelph Library‟s primary public

web presence … In this redesign, we will add

functional web services, make the navigation

more user-friendly, and improve the

accessibility and attractiveness of the site.

— Web Design Project Charter

All aspects of the site ww.lib.uoguelph.ca

◦ Functionality, usability, IA, navigation, look and feel,

sustainability, management

Adjacent sites which are managed by the Library

but are not technically part of the main site

◦ LMMRC

Externally hosted sites that are part of the UG Library information architecture

◦ TRELLIS OPAC

Sites hosted – but not managed – by the UG Library and with own URL (at the time in the same root folder):

◦ University of Guelph-Humber Library

◦ TUG staff site

Intranet

Emerging Services Steering Team (ESST) survey

LibQual survey

Usability studies

Web server migration

Technical knowledge of team

Content contributors

Campus politics

Time

Web content coordinator resigns in October 2006:

◦ Ballpark division of labour:

Content: 40%

Design: 60%

2009-02-02

3

Fall of 2006

Three drafts

Focused on deliverables

Several reviews

◦ Associate Chief Librarian for IT

◦ Web Advisory Group (consultative)

Made up of 10-12 representatives of library staff

University initiates re-

design of own Web site in

late fall 2006

University Webmaster / Web designer goes on paternity leave

Generalities of the design

Web team of 8

Specific timeline

◦ September 2007 “go live”

The Web Site Redesign Project

Sure, it’s a team effort; be prepared

to do 90% of the work.

– Colleague

My version of the ideal:

◦ Associate Chief Librarian – Sponsor

◦ Web Advisory Group – Guidance

◦ Content Creators’ Forum – Consultation

Indeterminate number

◦ Core team of eight

2009-02-02

4

Web Development Librarian

◦ Operations manager, design coordinator, content coordinator

Digital Initiatives Librarian

◦ Cold Fusion programming, database manager

Liaison Librarian

◦ User-centred analysis

Graphic artist (40% seconded to library)

◦ Branding, logos, overall aesthetic sense

“Web team” of four library associates

◦ Nuts and bolts: content, coding, usability testing.

Listserv (both team and staff)

News items via homepage (for public)

SharePoint for documents etc.

Face-to-face meetings

E-mail

Based on design for paper publications

Large photographs, big text

Specific colours, logos & branding, fonts …

Released as Quick Reference Guide

… Helvetica has been selected as the primary

typeface for headings, printed

communications and core identity

implementations. Helvetica is timeless,

versatile and elegant. It makes a statement

but never becomes one itself. Bembo [?] has

been selected as the complimentary typeface.

─ Quick Reference GuideUniversity of Guelph , January 2007

2009-02-02

5

A consultative meeting with university

Web managers held in February 2007

◦ 30 to 35 at meeting

◦ Design specifications are “descriptive” not

“prescriptive”

◦ Voluntary compliance

◦ We were told that the new design was not open

to major adjustments

Mid-February 2007

To establish baseline

Not intuitive

Navigation confusing

Should centre on resource discovery

Users not concerned about bells and whistles

Overall, test subjects were very satisfied

Although average task score was 1.8 out of 5

Three new services incorporated into

Library‟s administrative oversight

◦ New Web sections to be created from scratch

◦ “Audience-based” organization rather than “task

oriented”

Wire frames and prototypes created by re-

design core team with advice from WAG

◦ 24 drafts in all

◦ Content creators consulted in person and

electronically

General approval for new design

2009-02-02

6

mid-March 2007

◦ Usability testing based on new design

High marks from users in terms of navigation, content,

readability and aesthetics

Would like fewer “pop ups” on way to resources

Users score 4+ / 5 on tasks

Focus groups held as a follow up to previous

ESST survey

◦ Provided information in terms of users expectations,

Web 2.0 needs etc.

Not interested in bells & whistles

Did not want library in Facebook, Second Life etc.

No idea about RefWorks

Looking for “information” not “education”

2009-02-02

7

Identification of content managers

Identification of content management

software

◦ Contribute Publishing Server (CPS)

◦ Contribute CS3

Content contributors trained

◦ Dreamweaver use scaled back

Production server

◦ “Purged” and “rationalized”

◦ Used for development and testing

7 individual sites, 10 individual URLs

13+ Gb of files

140,000+ files in 7000+ folder

The “cleansed” server

◦ 7 individual sites, 10 individual URLs

◦ 10.1 GB of files

◦ 102,000+ files in 5300+ folders

New intent

◦ Untangle the amalgam of “sites”

◦ Separate development from production and maintain it

◦ Make server and main site sustainable

New servers set up

◦ Development

◦ Production

◦ Database

◦ Backup for each

Build on development server, then

synchronize to production

1. Information architecture and navigation

2. DW template creation

3. Content

◦ Transferred and reformatted for readability (50%)

◦ Rewritten completely (20%)

◦ New content for new sections from content creators (20%)

◦ Consolidated or removed (10%)

◦ “Web team” of four library associates completed lions‟ share of

content migration

◦ Staff and users asked for continuous feedback through e-mail as

site evolves

Pre-existing “Web team” were not experienced

HTML or CSS coders

Held some small workshops to help them along …

and more are planned

Process of build adjusted

1. Create base pages and navigation for team

2. Team cut „n paste content or rewrite

3. Review and validate all pages

4. Proof and fix where needed

2009-02-02

8

40% of pages completed

Open to staff and users for review; limited to

university IP addresses

Ongoing through summer as site‟s content is

migrated and built and people take holidays

UG Web master returns

UG Webmaster scraps original design

◦ Original design

Publishes new wireframes in July

◦ Homepage

◦ Interior page

To redesign the homepage and templates

based on new UG design

To complete the content migration

Yay!

Quietest time of the year

Several unanticipated problems due to unknown

CF applications, scripts, and “hidden”

components

◦ All sorted by beginning of winter semester

2009-02-02

9

Made up of 32 separate files◦ Includes

◦ CSS

◦ JS

◦ Images

JavaScript menus◦ Collapsible but accessible

Limited access to the production server

◦ Library systems staff only

◦ Some access through database driven Cold

Fusion

Subject guides

News

Hours

Some ERM information

All design, content development and editing

on development server only

◦ Includes system staff

Manual transfer of completed files to

production

◦ Permits catchment process

◦ Reduces downtime on production

◦ Service e-mail account created

18 Web sites (6 all new)

23 URLS (including 6 “non-Guelph” URLs)

Library site

◦ 11 top-level folders

◦ 1304 folders total, 38,026 files

◦ 7.09 Gb used space

Urchin 5 software for analysis of logs

◦ Google Analytics based on this

◦ Profiles created for section editors to analyze stats

2009-02-02

10

New usability study in February

CMS study in 2009

Integrating externally hosted “library” sites (ongoing)

◦ A to Z list at Scholar‟s Portal

◦ Ares course management system

“Branding” of subsidiary sites

◦ LMMRC

◦ Atrium

2010

◦ Start the re-design process again

Expect the unexpected

Compromise is a necessity but trust your

experience and skills

A team approach is great but you will do much of

the work yourself

Protect the production Web server

Always defer to the needs of the users

Include a timeline contingency

Yes◦ Site has met most goals, is better managed, and is

more sustainable

No◦ Site needs more Web 2.0 interactivity

Primo discovery tool will be a major addition in this regard

Maybe◦ A Web site is ever changing and evolving

Questions?

Web Governing Group

Web ImplementationGroup

Web Project Manager

Web manager(s)

Committees

• Oversees project

• Assigns duties

• Ensures goals met

• No content / design

• Quality control

• Overall design recommendations

• Reviews structure, content ..

• Recommends changes

• Evaluates use of site

• Provides guidance to WIG through

Web Project manager

• Tech staff mainly

• Day-to-Day ops.

• Programming

• XHTML/CSS; training

• Consultant to Webmaster(s)

• One for each unit

• Works closely with unit

• Develops content

• Day-to-day management

Cunningham, Jim. "So You Want to Put Your Library on the Web?," Computers in

Libraries 17 (February 1997) : 42-45

2009-02-02

11