1. Greg Vogl Research and Development Services University Libraries Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1

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

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

8.  Content providers  Content editors/publishers  Template designers  Software developers  System administrators 8

9.  Separation of concerns Separation of concerns ◦ Content/presentation, data/business logic Content/presentation  Visual consistency ◦ Page layout, formatting, navigation ◦ Each page must choose a template  More findable, usable, accessible ◦ Easier compliance with Web standards ◦ Easier Search Engine OptimizationSearch Engine Optimization 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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. 13

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 14

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 15

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

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 Many Drupal online resources for Libraries ◦ Used by over 30 academic libraries, e.g. ArizonalibrariesArizona ◦ Discussed at library conferences and online groups ◦ Many library-specific modules and usesmodules 17

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 18

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 19

20.  Planning  Design  Simplicity  Communication  Feedback  Training and Support  Buy-in and Participation 20

21. 21