UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
WEB REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME – TASK AND FINISH GROUP
16.00-18.00, 17 March 2008
Room 313, Geoffrey Pope Building
MINUTES (Draft)
Attendees:
Professor Neil Armstrong (Chair) (NA)
David Carpenter-Clawson (DCC)
Sean Fielding (SF)
Peter Lacey (PL)
Rob Mitchell (RM)
Linda Peka (LP)
Ann Pollard (AP)
Michele Shoebridge (MS)
Amanda Brook (AB) - attending
Rosemary Stamp (RS) - attending
1.
Apologies
2.
Welcome and Introductions
NA welcomed the group and thanked RS for attending to present the findings of her research.
3.
Role and Membership of the Group (WRP/08/01)
RM outlined the role of the group and the 3 project strands which make up the Web
Redevelopment Programme. It was agreed that student representation was important for the
group and that RM should invite Jess Dow, (President, Student’s Guild) to join. ACTION RM
4.
Strategic Web Development Research
Rosemary Stamp presented the key issues arising from the Strategic Web Development
research report. She began by stating that Exeter should not aim simply to keep up with web
developments across the sector, but to play a leading part in ongoing developments. The
website is crucial in how we tell people what we are doing, how we differenatiate ourselves from
our competitors and how we portray ourselves.
The top five issues arising from the report were:
1. Meeting strategic aims and “living the brand”
• Giving evidence and updates of our progress
• Demonstrating the University as a ‘thought leader’
• E.g. sustainability at Berkeley
Task and Finish Group minutes – 17/03/08
RS stated that no Universities are currently doing this well. SF suggested that we may have an
opportunity to use our expertise in Arab and Islamic Studies and Sustainability/Climate Change
to demonstrate ‘thought leadership’
2. Extending Exeter’s profile
• Increasing engagement with new to Exeter target audiences
• Developing an incubator strategy
• Eg Children’s University of Manchester
3. The differentiated ‘Exeter Experience’
• Encouraging online innovation
• Improving work experience for all
• Providing a first class experience for students and staff
4. Online brand expression
• Distinctive visual interface to set tone and style
• Communicate/reinforce brand messages through third part endorsement
• Articulate benefits, not just features
• E.g. Mercer’s use of real people to articulate benefits of study
RS stated that we should aim for a consistent set of standards thoughout the website
5. The employer brand
• Address recruitment and retention issues
• Portray the University as the employer of choice
• E.g. BBC recruitment pages
RS stated that the speed of change is often slower in HE and that Exeter should seek to
position itself as an aspirational employer.
PL noted that most of the sites mentioned seemed to be cluttered and confused in presentation.
RS stated that it is much more effective to channel visitors to the website through leaner pages
with fewer options. If it is not clear where a user should go next to find their service or content,
they can become frustrated and leave.
SF asked how we could ensure consistency when all audiences like/want different things?
RS suggested that visitors should be streamed into different areas where they can be handled
differently.
RM suggested that the combination of a flexible design scheme, a content management system
and ongoing user testing to understand users needs would be critical in delivering this.
The recommendation to articulate the benefits of the University’s services was discussed and
supported. LP described this as “the ‘so what?’ question”. Visitors should understand what the
University means for them.
AB stated that we needed to develop advocacy.
NA thanked RS for her time and her contribution to the programme.
5.
Draft Design Brief (WRP/08/03)
The draft Design Brief was tabled, and AP presented it to the group.
Task and Finish Group minutes – 17/03/08
LP asked whether the keywords listed made the University sound ‘sleepy’. MS asked whether it
was possible to be both ‘modern’ and ‘heritage’. How can we take what we have and move it
forward?
SF suggested that the University was ‘Challenging people. Changing society’. He noted that
making the website a success would require us to think in news way about our activities.
MS stressed the importance of including the Portal in the redesign and that the new homepages
should funnel people towards the portal much more directly.
NA asked RM and AP to incorporate the comments from the Group and to present the brief to
the Redesign Project Board. ACTION AP, RM
It was agreed that RM should present the findings of the Stamp Report and an outline of the
Design Brief to SMG. ACTION RM
6.
Programme Timetable (WRP/08/04)
The high-level timetable for the Programme was reviewed and approved.
7.
Consultation Process (WRP/08/05)
The proposed process for consultation was reviewed and approved.
8.
Any Other Business
None
9.
Date of Next Meeting
29th April 2008
Rob Mitchell (Secretary)
Web Editor
1/04/08
Task and Finish Group minutes – 17/03/08