Making it happen A6 - Web Site Redevelopment IWMW 2001: Organising Chaos

Making it happenA6 - Web Site Redevelopment

IWMW 2001: Organising Chaos

Implementation

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Kent’s case

Structure and content from in-house

Design and template preparation by consultants

So - how to find the right outside company?

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Criteria

Varied portfoliosExperience with public sector companiesWell-presented corporate sitesStructural designInterface designGraphic design

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

First round

30 companies chosen from– Yahoo.co.uk - UK Web Design houses– New Media Age– Internet Magazine– Other Websites– Other design magazines– word of mouth

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

First round (cont.) and invite

Small 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

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

The brief - important bits

Why 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

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Second round

5 companies accepted and tendered 13 designs in all

45 staff and students invited to come and see - carefully chosen

Evaluation / ratings forms filled in by each3 companies invited to interview - 2

companies very popular and a third added due to popularity amongst design staff

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Third (and final) round

Three 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

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

The project

Keymedia chosenInitial meeting on-site with successful

companyCommunication via email and phone

through design stages and then codingEach stage involved a “signing-off” process

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Staffing

Keymedia– 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

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Content

Re-organisation of current content - lengthy but possible– maintenance issues solved by pigging-backing

on paper publications schedules

New 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?

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Challenges

Designers need to know limitations of Web as well as opportunities

Coders need to have read the brief or at least been told about it

Coders (ideally) should be as good or better than your in-house ones

Project manager needs to know their colleagues and be aware of all issues

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Costs

25k 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+ - :-(

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 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

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Consultation

Strategy - managementStructure - users (as far as possible),

management and peersInterface and graphic design - usability

literature, accessibility guidelines and user testing

Management and maintenance

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Those involved ...

Content writersHTML codersInformation managersGraphic designers / MultimediaServer maintainers - script installersStats producers

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

Low maintenance options

PDFsStatic pages for static contentDatabases for retrieval and collectionSSIs - Server Side IncludesStylesheetsDreamweaver templates and Library itemsExcellent search and replace tools

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 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

M.E.C.Banbery@ukc.ac.uk : 26/06/2001(c) 2001, The University of Kent at Canterbury

High maintenance options

Regularly 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