Upload
webhostingguy
View
245
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Web Content Management:
The Texas Experience
Outline
• University Webs• CMS models• Selecting a solution• Next steps
utexas.edu
• Hundreds of Web servers
• Containing thousand of Web sites
• Created and maintained (sometimes) by thousands of Web publishers
• Who produce millions of pages
Attributes of a High-Quality University Web Site
• Complete
• Current
• Coherent
• Searchable
• Accessible
• Attractive
• Robust
• Secure
• Cost Effective
• Aligned with spirit and goals of institution
UT Self Assessment on These AttributesEarly 2002
4
3
4
3
3.5
2.5
4.5
4
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Complete
Current
Coherent
Searchable
Accessible
Attractive
Robust
Secure
Cost Effective
0 = poor, 5=excellent
Some Key Questions?
• Does everyone have to be an accessibility expert?
• Does everyone have to know HTML or Dreamweaver?
• Can we free up time for highly-trained Web professionals to create and innovate?
• Can we do things more efficiently?
• Where does your content go when it dies? Does it ever die?
Progress
• UT Web redesign in 2002 improved in many of these areas– More attractive
– More consistent, better branding
– Modular templates
– More usable and accessible
– Improved division of labor• IT - infrastructure
• Public Affairs – content
– More dynamic
University’s Home Today
Progress Needed in Other Areas
• Current
• Cost effective
• Accessible
• Workflow
• Metadata
• Can a Web content management solution help?
Typical University Web Presence
Web Publisher
Web Consumer
IIS WebServer
Apache WebServer
IIS WebServer
IIS WebServer
Apache WebServer
Apache WebServer
Apache WebServer
IIS WebServer
Apache WebServer
IIS WebServer
ContentContributor
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Typical Web Content Management Model
Web Editor
Web Consumer
ContentContributor
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Content
ManagementServer
Web Editor
TemplateCreation
ContentApproval
A Point CMS Approach in Higher Ed
Web Publisher
Web Consumer
Engineering WebServer
(CMS Solution B)
Law SchoolWeb server
(CMS Solution A)
Business School Web Server
(CMS Solution C)
Departmental ApacheServer
(CMS Solution D)
ContentContributor
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Clear Differences
• Commercial content management– More highly centralized
– Greater control of content, branding, toolset
• University– Decentralized
– Less control
A Hybrid Model
Web Editor
Web Consumer
ContentContributor
Web Publisher
Web Publisher
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Consumer
Web Content
ManagementServer
Web Editor
TemplateCreation
ContentApproval
Pre-existing Apache Web
Server
Pre-existing IIS Web
Server
Advantages of Hybrid Model
• Leverages CMS solution yet is still sensitive to the distributed nature and political realities of a research University
• Can use the CMS solution selectively; rely on carrot rather than stick
• Better than typical University approach because CMS solution is shared across the enterprise
In Pursuit of a Solution
• Formed cross-campus team – IT
– Library
– Public Affairs
– Academic colleges
– Business units
• Developed functional specification for solution
• Evaluated possibilities– Open Source
– Building Our Own
– Commercial space
TimelineSolicit
communityinput
Developfunctional
specs
Reviewsolutions
Requestfor
information
Review responsesSelect 4
possibilities
Productdemos
Select 2finalists
On sitePOCs
Productrecommendation
Licensenegotiation
Producttraining
SoftwareInstall
(development)
AprilJanuaryJuly
Jul-Aug
Jul-Aug
August
September
October
October
Nov-Dec Feb-Mar April
2003 2004
Early wins
May
Productioninstallation
ImplementationPlanning
May-Jun
June
Major Functionalities
• Integration with campus infrastructure (databases, Web servers, authentication)
• Content creation; knowledge of HTML or Dreamweaver not required
• Templates for attractive, consistent presentation
• Workflow
• Metadata
• Versioning
• Deployment to other Web servers
• Support for standards (accessibility, XML, Web services, WebDAV)
Selection Process
• Selected 4 vendors for 1 day demo– Stellent– Interwoven– Merant Collage– Rhythymx Percussion
• Narrowed list to 2 vendors– Stellent– Merant Collage
• Each of 2 final candidates conducted 10 day proof of concept on site
• Stellent Content server selected.
Why Stellent?
• Excellent content conversion
• Solid, flexible workflow
• But no solution was a perfect fit
• Success would depend upon both product and partnership with vendor
• Commitment from Stellent to the University
CMS ScorecardRequirement/Vendor Merant Stellent
Integration w/ Campus Infrastructure
Content Creation +Templates
Workflow +Metadata
Versioning
Deployment to other Web Servers
--
Support for Standards
Macintosh Support + --
Main Content Management Server
(Solaris)
Stellent Architecture at UT
Web Editor
ContentContributor
Web Publisher
ContentContributor
ContentContributor
Web Consumer
Existing Apache Web Server
Existing IIS WebServer
ActiveDirectory
Oracle
StellentContentServer
Instance
TaminoInstance
WindowsPDF Converter
Server
Netapp Filer
Authentication
PDFConversion
MetadataStore
Disk forContent Server
Web Consumer
(possibly)
Implementation Stages
• Integration with existing campus Web servers and authentication
• Development of common metadata/document models
• Quick early wins to provide carrots for campus;
• Must demonstrate value of learning new way of doing things for Webmasters and contributors
Where Are We Today?
• Signed deal about 4 weeks ago
• Received product training mid-April
• Installed development server
• Pursued “quick wins” to demonstrate functionality and win converts from skeptics
Quick Win Examples
Around Austin News Releases
Around Austin
• Developed using Stellent SiteStudio
• Enables very easy editing of existing site
• Developer sets up site with editable regions
• Contributor navigates to site, presses key sequence, and switches to edit mode to update site
• Edits can enter workflow if desired, or go live immediately
• Example (http://wwwtest.utexas.edu/work/stellent/austin/)
• Note: Windows-only solution (for developers/contributors)
Public Affairs News Releases
• Produce quality output currently, but time consuming
• Create site with Stellent Content Publisher
• News releases created in MS Word template
• Word documents checked into CMS Server
• Enter workflow automatically
• Presentation template applied
• Published to Web and linked from index page
• Example (http://wwwtest.utexas.edu/work/stellent/news)
Where From Here?
• Production environment
• Active Directory integration
• Security model
• Metadata model
• Training for more campus Web developers
• Template creation
• Show the way by walking there first and let people choose the approach that works best for them
• Campus product advisory board
How Will We Know if it Works?
• Campus research opportunities (i.e. School of Information)• Measurement of campus Web
– Frequency of content updates, less stale content– Number of contributors– Less time spent on routine maintenance– Fewer Web servers on campus– Improved consistency for usability and branding– More accessible– More secure– Improved content discovery via metadata
• How to measure?– WatchFire