1
CMS & Web Presence
(defining a strategy to replace the existing CMS
and creating a more effective web presence)
Prepared by Sue Searing
In consultation with Beth Namachchivaya, Robert Slater, and Chris Prom
University Library Faculty/AP Un-Retreat
January 7, 2014
In the near future, the Library must do two things:


Implement a new content management system
Re-design the Library’s web presence to introduce simpler organization of content, easier
navigation, and visual appeal that reflects the richness of the Library’s services and
collections as a major research library.
Fundamental questions:
1. What process will allow us to most effectively implement a new CMS and redesign the
site?
2. What core principles should underlie the implementation and/or redesign effort?
Our discussion:
During the discussion, we will brainstorm ideas on four topics:
1. Challenges: What are the main obstacles that a CMS implementation and web redesign
project will face?
2. Goal/Objective: What goal or goals should the project have?
3. Strategies: What specific steps should we take to accomplish the goal or goals we have
articulated?
4. Resources: What resources will we need to commit to the project to make it a success?
Outcome:
The first discussion group will develop a working document listing challenges, goals, strategies,
and resources. The second discussion group will read the working document and will ask
questions, make additions, elaborations or challenges to the first group’s work.
Following the un-retreat, the leaders of the first and second groups (Chris Prom and Bill Mischo)
and any other interested will meet to debrief. Over the subsequent month, Chris Prom will
develop a report based on the discussions, working with any interested parties to refine the report.
Background:
The remainder of this document provides a list of questions and discussion points provided as
background information when considering ideas for discussion, building on the work done by the
Web Advisory Group.
2
CMS/Website Discussion:
Process questions: How can the Library manage its migration and re-design for maximum
effectiveness and satisfaction?
1. Commitment of effort and time: Past Library web design projects were led by
committees appointed for that purpose. The committee approach requires huge
commitments of time and effort from many people, prolongs the process, and results,
many feel, in a “lowest common denominator” final product. Alternatives include:
a. Reassign someone within the Library to serve as leader of the process, following
the model of the New Service Model Coordinator. NOTE: CAPT currently leans
toward this approach.
b. Hire a consultant. (If so, for what aspects of the work?)
c. Outsource. (If so, for what aspects of the work?)
d. Work through existing internal committees –WAG and/or different groups. (If so,
for what aspects of the work?) NOTE: WAG is charged to play a major role in
requirements gathering.
e. Some combination of these approaches.
f. Other approaches?
2. Requirements gathering: Everyone is a stakeholder in the Library’s website. How can
we assure that everyone’s requirements are heard and considered, including users?
3. Resource requirements: What staff time, expertise, and technology resources are needed
to migrate the CMS and to refine our web presence.
4. Timing: Both tasks are becoming urgent, but can both be accomplished at the same time?
Is it better to migrate what exists into a new CMS, and then re-design, or do the re-design
as we move into the new CMS?
5. CMS migration: Once a new platform has been chosen, should we brute-force migrate
what the Library has currently? Or should we prepare for the migration by re-shaping
and pruning content in advance? If the latter, what is the best way to organize that effort
CMS selection questions: In choosing a new platform, we must balance our desire to support
multiple kinds of content as well as functionality, and the desire for a tool that is easy to use:
1. What is frustrating or difficult in using our current system, OpenCMS?
2. What are the essential things that our next CMS needs to be able to do for us? What
more would we like it to do?
3. We intend that the Web migration and new CMS implementation not force us to “take a
step backward” by providing less functionality than the current site. However, if we
should need to sacrifice functionality, what are we willing to lose?
4. The Gateway supports a high degree of complexity now, including static web pages,
databases (both local and external), and access to other systems and services. Our choice
of CMS may need to support this complexity. Is there some kind of hybrid solution? Do
we need to consider a heavy-weight CMS like Drupal which supports a high degree of
technical complexity and integration with other systems, but isn’t readily accessible to
3
content creators? Or do we want to consider an alternative choice like Word Press, which
has a low bar to entry but doesn’t readily support the kind of system integration the
Library may be seeking?
Design questions: How do we want the website to represent the Library?
1. What is the best conceptual framework for organizing information on our website? How
important are physical and virtual service locations (i.e., departmental libraries and hubs)
in delivering content via the website?
2. What are the core information elements that all Library websites for public service points
should include? Examples might be hours, staff lists, an “about” page, telephone/email
contact information, chat reference widget, etc.
3. What features/function/content/graphics have you seen on another library’s home page
that you’d like to see our Gateway incorporate? Please bring at least one example!
4. What is the ideal range of “difference” across the design and web presence in various
areas of the Library? How much uniqueness across units can be supported before some
elements of the site look like they are no longer part of the U of I Library?
No solution will please everyone in the library (nor all of our users), but can we agree ahead of
time to adhere to a few basic principles? The Web Advisory Group (WAG) of the Content
Access Policy and Technology committee (CAPT) is sharing its initial, draft set of principles
(attached) for discussion.
4
----DRAFT---The Web Advisory Group (WAG) is discussing these DRAFT principles for
a redesigned website.
1. The library homepage should emphasize important and frequent user tasks.
 Start their research
 Get information about the library & its services
 Get help
2. The primary audience of the website is the faculty, staff, and students at the
University of Illinois. Information will also be available to members of the general
public.
 [More on tone and personality of the site]
3. The library website should not mirror the scattered physical nature of the
University library, adhering to information architecture principals.
 More of a flat structure, allowing for shorter URLs
 1st level is homepage, 2nd level is navigation/pathway pages, 3rd level is
destination
4. Develop and adhere to a single and consistent navigation scheme.
 By user type?
 By subject?
 By task?
5. The website must be accessible to users with disabilities.
6. Website content should be continuously and systematically evaluated to keep it
up to date. Outdated content should be removed from the server so that it is not
findable through search engines.
7. Website design and structure are evidenced based, utilizing user studies,
analytics, and other methods conducted at both the University of Illinois and
elsewhere.
8. A style guide in line with university guidelines will be established and enforced in
order to provide a unified website adhering to established principles of web
accessibility and usability.
 Content should be brief, recognizing that users skim webpages and rarely
read “below the fold.”
 Less is more
 The Library should conform to the University guidelines for graphic and
written styles, at http://identitystandards.illinois.edu/.
9. Everyone who edits web content will be aware of these guiding principles.