Website Relaunch update, presented to the Forum of Curators, Conservators, and Scientists on October 22, 2009

1. Website Relaunch Progress Report to the Forum of Curators, Conservators, and Scientists October 22, 2009

2. Overview of Process Project initiation Need for new site led to RFP Vendor selection Process, engineering, experience/savvy 14 vendors, 3 rounds, 14 months to decision Committee of 25 Met staff Cognitive Applications (Cogapp)

3. Cogapp’s Work Single process that results in institution-specific outcomes Jewish Museum website British Museum website National Portrait Gallery (UK) website MoMA.guide gallery interactives

4. Project organization Project Co-Leads: Douglas Hegley Matt Morgan Project Coordinator: Morgan Holzer

5. Project-related committees Steering Committee Advisory Committee

6. Project Goals Launch a new site on up-to-date technology Improve workflows Increase content Follow best practices Provide flexibility (future-proof)

7. Project Timeframe Phase I (definition and documentation of new site) completes in April 2010 Proposed Phase II (implementation and launch) May 2010 – c. July 2011

8. Project Vision Statement Guides our work Based on results of empirical research Including stakeholder interviews, technical discovery, and user surveys and testing

9. Why have a Vision Statement? “The single most important determining factor for the success of a software project is its conceptual integrity.” – Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man Month

10. Conceptual Integrity Architecture is separated from implementation. Determines what goes in the system and what stays out. Keeping a system focused guarantees that people will use it and enjoy it.

11. Website Architecture Architecture is the functional framework of the overall system. Good architectural structure ensures that your site will be able to embrace both what it needs to do now and what it might need to do in the future.

12. Examples Good conceptual integrity and architecture: Denver Art Museum, Rockefeller Center Poor conceptual integrity and architecture: AMNH Comparison: Jetblue vs. American Airlines

13. Architecture and Content We need to build the framework first, informed by range of possible content, so that the site we build does not constrain us later.

14. Content Expected to expand and change over time The current site did not predict podcasting, videos, interactives, social media—and all are now tacked on. They had no architectural framework available

16. Visitors want the site to reflect the feel of the Museum — and we agree that it should

18. Vision Statement Some user-driven assertions, some internally-driven assertions, and some from both categories

19. Visitor Goals Social Media Engaging online experience Destination in its own right

20. Social Media Includes personalization, sharing, visitor participation MoMA’s “Social Bar” My Met Museum Facebook ShareThis

21. Engaging online experience User-centered navigation and search Navigation: Denver Art Museum Search: Google?

22. Destination in its own right Online versions of Museum content, interactives, games Explore and Learn, unique Special Exhibition features Postopia

23. Internal Goals Encourage visitors to come to the Museum Maximize revenue Programs for hard-to-reach audiences Robust content management and streamlined workflow

24. Encouraging physical visits On view/not on view NGA MFA Trip planners/itineraries Rockefeller Center

25. Maximize revenue Print on demand NYPL Upselling membership counterexample at MMA Online customer service Amazon

26. Both Showcase the Museum’s collections, exhibitions, scholarship, programs, and services Authoritative source/expert voice Broad range of voices Stimulate appreciation for and advance knowledge of works of art Accessibility

27. Authoritative & Expert Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History Collection Database (very often)

28. Broad range of voices Authored content: Timeline thematic essays Blogs

29. Accessibility The “digital curb cut” OXO Good Grips utensils actual curb cuts correct link texts, image descriptions

30. Vision Statement: Audience General visitors; Art historians, lecturers, and students of art history; School children and teachers; Members, sponsors, and donors; Families; Frequent visitors to the website; International visitors; General web browsers

31. Audience: why this list? The Director, informed by Cogapp’s research, ranked the groups on the list.

32. What does it mean? Some challenges are explicit, for example: how to prioritize both “Students of art history” and “General visitors? how much to translate into foreign languages? Meeting them will dictate resource commitments

33. Ad Hoc Committee Specific concerns

34. Website and TMS TMS standardization and consolidation project is independent, but related Benefits to the website: Improved object pages Smoother navigation within objects More objects online

35. “Branding” & “Museum Voice” The website does not determine either. The website reflects these things as defined by the Director.

36. Questions?