IWMW 2001: Web Site Redevelopment (2)
Transcript of IWMW 2001: Web Site Redevelopment (2)
Making it happenA6 - Web Site Redevelopment
IWMW 2001: Organising Chaos
Implementation
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
Kent’s caseStructure and content from in-house
Design and template preparation by consultants
So - how to find the right outside company?
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
CriteriaVaried portfoliosExperience with public sector companiesWell-presented corporate sitesStructural designInterface designGraphic design
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
First round30 companies chosen from
– Yahoo.co.uk - UK Web Design houses– New Media Age– Internet Magazine– Other Websites– Other design magazines– word of mouth
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
First round (cont.) and inviteSmall group of publications team and
designers whittled down and chose 9 companies with a reserve list of 7
9 companies invited to tender– brief– covering letter– publications pack– suggested timeline to be followed if successful
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
The brief - important bitsWhy Kent needed a new siteWho the site was forWhat resources were available to maintain itWhat technological aspirations were there
(standards, browser compliance, speed)Corporate style and publications packHave a contract - with penalty clauses
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
Second round5 companies accepted and tendered 13
designs in all45 staff and students invited to come and
see - carefully chosenEvaluation / ratings forms filled in by each3 companies invited to interview - 2
companies very popular and a third added due to popularity amongst design staff
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
Third (and final) roundThree companies invited to present their
designs to selection panel of 8– Senior management (including VC)– Web committee reps– Director of C&DO and Web Editor– University designer– Students’ Union
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
The projectKeymedia chosenInitial meeting on-site with successful
companyCommunication via email and phone
through design stages and then codingEach stage involved a “signing-off” process
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
StaffingKeymedia
– Project manager - liaison role– Designer - initial stages until design signed off– Coder - later stages until end of project– Design and technical managers - checks
In-house– Web Editor - 1 fte– Support - .8 fte < 2.3 fte for final fortnight– University designer - checks
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
ContentRe-organisation of current content - lengthy
but possible– maintenance issues solved by pigging-backing
on paper publications schedulesNew content - tricky and time consuming
– Who provides this and how often?– Will they meet your deadlines for the re-design?– Can your Web team do it all? Should they?
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
ChallengesDesigners need to know limitations of Web
as well as opportunitiesCoders need to have read the brief or at
least been told about itCoders (ideally) should be as good or better
than your in-house onesProject manager needs to know their
colleagues and be aware of all issues
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
Costs25k server on special offer (Sun Ultra 450 -
lots of memory and big disks)£500 to each company who tenderedEstimates of 8-18k for same briefTell them what you have and they will spend
it - is this a good idea?Razorfish - no marketing, no need - average
client 100k+ - :-(
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
Milestones Structure finished Design drafts 1 + 2 Final designs Coding of a page 1 Templates drafts 1 + 2 Final Templates Content written Scripts installed and
tested on server
Validation and accessibility checks done
Templates and content merged
User testing Be prepared to go
back to an earlier stage
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
ConsultationStrategy - managementStructure - users (as far as possible),
management and peersInterface and graphic design - usability
literature, accessibility guidelines and user testing
Management and maintenance
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
Those involved ...Content writersHTML codersInformation managersGraphic designers / MultimediaServer maintainers - script installersStats producers
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
Low maintenance optionsPDFsStatic pages for static contentDatabases for retrieval and collectionSSIs - Server Side IncludesStylesheetsDreamweaver templates and Library itemsExcellent search and replace tools
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
How not to waste time and effort Use tools that save time Make sure that all pages have a purpose Check they meet that purpose Do not tie your Web site to any particular
technology Try not to duplicate the page length, writing style
and graphic design of paper documents - change your content to fit the medium
Prioritise your activities to fit those of University
[email protected] : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury
High maintenance optionsRegularly changing structureHigh graphics intensity for text and fontsTemplates that cannot be changed globally
once appliedStatic pages for regularly changing contentNo search and replace toolsText editor page editing