MAKING THE CASE FOR CMS       Internet
   NINA MCHALE & KEN VARNUM   Librarian
                              2011
                              O c to b e r 1 9 2 01 1
      @NINERMAC     @VARNUM
ONE-QUESTION SURVEY


  What reasons have
 you been given that
 you can't use a CMS
for web development
   in your library?


bitly.com/cmspoll
MOVING TO CMS: THE ISSUES

1.   Centralization of development
2.   Branding
3.   Democratization of content
4.   Control over your own destiny
CENTRALIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT

 Eliminate redundancy
   One system to rule them all
   Simplify everything through consolidation
 Control
   Who had it?
   Who gets it?
 Staffing levels
   Put right staff in right place
   Outsource hosting, worry about customizing?
BRANDING

 Emphasize your brand
 Standardize site navigation
 Push core services & functionality
 Reduces cognitive overload for your patrons
 Galvanizes and promotes library identity within
  your community (campus, city, etc.
 Doesn’t mean all departments/branches need to
  look the same.
 If no brand exists, the scope of the problem is
  well beyond the web folks.
DEMOCRATIZATION OF CONTENT

 CMS separates content creation from
  programming
  Lack of administrative oversight of content
  Focus on consistent message
  Perceived (or real) loss of control
 Removes most skill barriers from
  authoring
  Someone’s expertise may become valueless
  Some HTML still may be helpful for advanced
   users
CONTROL OVER YOUR OWN DESTINY

 You’re not dependent on someone else to
  make things happen
 When you want a new function, you can do
  it – often by mixing & matching existing
  tools
 Ability to respond quickly to patron needs
 You may inherit responsibility for
  application (CMS) and web server security
 A security compromise could put your
  parent institution at risk as well
CMS CONCERNS FROM 3 DIRECTIONS

1. IT
2. Administration
3. Staff
IT CONCERNS: FUNCTIONALIT Y

“CMSs are too limited. We’d have to mold
the site to the CMS, rather than build
exactly what we want.”
  Most CMSs are very flexible and can be
   extended by contributed packages of code
   (i.e., Drupal modules)
  Make a CMS choice carefully; research what
   strengths and weaknesses of each are and
   show how they are or aren’t a good fit.
IT CONCERNS: ENVIRONMENT

“We don’t have a place to put it.”
  “Make one. Pretty please?”
  “We’re going rogue.”
    Web hosting options are inexpensive
    Many hosting companies have “one click”
     CMS install for popular CMS software
    Support may be better than what you get in-
     house
IT CONCERNS: MAINTENANCE

“No one will be able to maintain the
system; it will become a security issue.”
 Adopting a CMS does require taking on a
  maintenance regime.
 If the site’s functionality is not too
  complicated, upgrades are not difficult.
 See if IT will agree to maintain server
  environment; strike a balance.
IT CONCERNS: SECURIT Y, 1/2

“Open source software isn’t secure.”
  The nature of open source development
   communities actually makes it more secure
  The managers of these sites think open
   source CMSs are secure:
    whitehouse.gov (Drupal)
    wikipedia.org (MediaWiki)
    NYT blogs (WordPress)
IT CONCERNS: SECURIT Y, 2/2

“Too many people will have access to the
web server.”
  In most CMSs, only web admins require direct
   server access
  Content creators add content via a browser
  Existing accounts (i.e., LDAP/AD) can be used
  Permissions of CMSs allow very granular,
   precisely controlled access
ADMIN CONCERNS: TERRITORY

“We have to use our parent organization’s
Content Management System.”
  What are limitations of that CMS?
  Does that truly give your users the best
   experience?
  Who “owns” web services within the library?
    Admin?
    IT?
    Public Service s?
ADMIN CONCERNS:
          CONTENT/MESSAGE
“Library staff will have free reign on the
site.”
   Develop a content strategy
    Who speaks on the site, and what should they
     say?
   Set standards for content, branding, etc.
   Establish web publication workflows with
    editorial review (CMSs support these!)
   Train library staff on all of the above
ADMIN CONCERNS: STAFFING

“We don’t have anyone who can do this for
you. No one has the time or the skills.”
  “I can do it.”
  Install the CMS on your laptop and develop a
   sample site.
  Time saving aspects of CMSs can free up
   time doing tedious work (link checking,
   reports, stale content) on a static site to learn
   how to maintain a CMS-based site.
ADMIN CONCERNS: COST

“A CMS will be too costly.”
  Learning the CMS will be an initial
   investment, even if it’s free, in terms of
   employee time
  Web authoring software (Dreamweaver, etc.)
   is no longer necessary for content creators to
   draft content and connect to the server
    Cost of licenses
    Cost of staff time learning specific software
     versus web-based input of most CMSs
STAFF CONCERNS: TECH SKILLS

“They’re too hard to use.”
  Web staff may have to learn the CMS initially
  Most CMSs use browser-based editing for
   content creation
  If staff can type in a web browser, they can
   add content to a CMS
STAFF CONCERNS: CHANGE

“This will be a big change; will we be able
to manage it?”
  “You won’t have to use Dreamweaver
   anymore.”
  “You won’t have to use FrontPage anymore.”
  “You don’t have to use HTML (if you don’t
   want to).”
  Point out these and other benefits that will
   make life easier for content creators.
STAFF CONCERNS: AUTHORIT Y

“We won’t have control over our content.”
  How much control do they have now? What
   are their specific concerns?
  Organization must establish rules for content
   (workflow, procedures, etc.)
  Most CMSs have very robust
   user/permissions systems that allow staff
   access to precisely what they need for their
   work, and no more
THE ONE QUESTION SURVEY:
         YOUR RESPONSES



What reasons have you been given
that you can't use a CMS for web
  development in your library?
CONTACT INFORMATION

      Nina McHale             Ken Varnum
nina@milehighbrarian.net   varnum@umich.edu
       @ninermac                @varnum
   milehighbrarian.net         rss4lib.com

Il 2011 Making the Case for CMS!

  • 1.
    MAKING THE CASEFOR CMS Internet NINA MCHALE & KEN VARNUM Librarian 2011 O c to b e r 1 9 2 01 1 @NINERMAC @VARNUM
  • 2.
    ONE-QUESTION SURVEY What reasons have you been given that you can't use a CMS for web development in your library? bitly.com/cmspoll
  • 3.
    MOVING TO CMS:THE ISSUES 1. Centralization of development 2. Branding 3. Democratization of content 4. Control over your own destiny
  • 4.
    CENTRALIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT Eliminate redundancy  One system to rule them all  Simplify everything through consolidation  Control  Who had it?  Who gets it?  Staffing levels  Put right staff in right place  Outsource hosting, worry about customizing?
  • 5.
    BRANDING  Emphasize yourbrand  Standardize site navigation  Push core services & functionality  Reduces cognitive overload for your patrons  Galvanizes and promotes library identity within your community (campus, city, etc.  Doesn’t mean all departments/branches need to look the same.  If no brand exists, the scope of the problem is well beyond the web folks.
  • 6.
    DEMOCRATIZATION OF CONTENT CMS separates content creation from programming  Lack of administrative oversight of content  Focus on consistent message  Perceived (or real) loss of control  Removes most skill barriers from authoring  Someone’s expertise may become valueless  Some HTML still may be helpful for advanced users
  • 7.
    CONTROL OVER YOUROWN DESTINY  You’re not dependent on someone else to make things happen  When you want a new function, you can do it – often by mixing & matching existing tools  Ability to respond quickly to patron needs  You may inherit responsibility for application (CMS) and web server security  A security compromise could put your parent institution at risk as well
  • 8.
    CMS CONCERNS FROM3 DIRECTIONS 1. IT 2. Administration 3. Staff
  • 9.
    IT CONCERNS: FUNCTIONALITY “CMSs are too limited. We’d have to mold the site to the CMS, rather than build exactly what we want.”  Most CMSs are very flexible and can be extended by contributed packages of code (i.e., Drupal modules)  Make a CMS choice carefully; research what strengths and weaknesses of each are and show how they are or aren’t a good fit.
  • 10.
    IT CONCERNS: ENVIRONMENT “Wedon’t have a place to put it.”  “Make one. Pretty please?”  “We’re going rogue.”  Web hosting options are inexpensive  Many hosting companies have “one click” CMS install for popular CMS software  Support may be better than what you get in- house
  • 11.
    IT CONCERNS: MAINTENANCE “Noone will be able to maintain the system; it will become a security issue.”  Adopting a CMS does require taking on a maintenance regime.  If the site’s functionality is not too complicated, upgrades are not difficult.  See if IT will agree to maintain server environment; strike a balance.
  • 12.
    IT CONCERNS: SECURITY, 1/2 “Open source software isn’t secure.”  The nature of open source development communities actually makes it more secure  The managers of these sites think open source CMSs are secure:  whitehouse.gov (Drupal)  wikipedia.org (MediaWiki)  NYT blogs (WordPress)
  • 13.
    IT CONCERNS: SECURITY, 2/2 “Too many people will have access to the web server.”  In most CMSs, only web admins require direct server access  Content creators add content via a browser  Existing accounts (i.e., LDAP/AD) can be used  Permissions of CMSs allow very granular, precisely controlled access
  • 14.
    ADMIN CONCERNS: TERRITORY “Wehave to use our parent organization’s Content Management System.”  What are limitations of that CMS?  Does that truly give your users the best experience?  Who “owns” web services within the library?  Admin?  IT?  Public Service s?
  • 15.
    ADMIN CONCERNS: CONTENT/MESSAGE “Library staff will have free reign on the site.”  Develop a content strategy  Who speaks on the site, and what should they say?  Set standards for content, branding, etc.  Establish web publication workflows with editorial review (CMSs support these!)  Train library staff on all of the above
  • 16.
    ADMIN CONCERNS: STAFFING “Wedon’t have anyone who can do this for you. No one has the time or the skills.”  “I can do it.”  Install the CMS on your laptop and develop a sample site.  Time saving aspects of CMSs can free up time doing tedious work (link checking, reports, stale content) on a static site to learn how to maintain a CMS-based site.
  • 17.
    ADMIN CONCERNS: COST “ACMS will be too costly.”  Learning the CMS will be an initial investment, even if it’s free, in terms of employee time  Web authoring software (Dreamweaver, etc.) is no longer necessary for content creators to draft content and connect to the server  Cost of licenses  Cost of staff time learning specific software versus web-based input of most CMSs
  • 18.
    STAFF CONCERNS: TECHSKILLS “They’re too hard to use.”  Web staff may have to learn the CMS initially  Most CMSs use browser-based editing for content creation  If staff can type in a web browser, they can add content to a CMS
  • 19.
    STAFF CONCERNS: CHANGE “Thiswill be a big change; will we be able to manage it?”  “You won’t have to use Dreamweaver anymore.”  “You won’t have to use FrontPage anymore.”  “You don’t have to use HTML (if you don’t want to).”  Point out these and other benefits that will make life easier for content creators.
  • 20.
    STAFF CONCERNS: AUTHORITY “We won’t have control over our content.”  How much control do they have now? What are their specific concerns?  Organization must establish rules for content (workflow, procedures, etc.)  Most CMSs have very robust user/permissions systems that allow staff access to precisely what they need for their work, and no more
  • 21.
    THE ONE QUESTIONSURVEY: YOUR RESPONSES What reasons have you been given that you can't use a CMS for web development in your library?
  • 22.
    CONTACT INFORMATION Nina McHale Ken Varnum nina@milehighbrarian.net varnum@umich.edu @ninermac @varnum milehighbrarian.net rss4lib.com

Editor's Notes

  • #2 NIna
  • #3 NIna
  • #4 Nina
  • #5 KenEliminate redundant interfaces - Makes creating, managing, and *using* content easier for all - Can make granularity of content harder to see - If you can do one function, you can do all - More burden on center to keep everything up; harder to delegate - Parts of your library may feel loss of control; may become data providers without the “pleasure” of maintaining the interfaceTeach one system - Everyone can be [somewhat easily] taught to use the system on the authoring side - Requires training effort. Easier/harder than Dreamweaver/raw HTML?Democratize content creation - Everyone can be an author – yay! - Everyone can be an author – uh oh. Does everyone understand how to speak with the library’s voice? - Editing/review processed may be needed; can increase bureaucracy when anyone can write, do you trust them to do so?One design (with subdesigns) for all - Gives your site an identify - Lowers user burden to understand where they are and how to get where they’re going - Your operating units may perceive a lack of autonomy - Their expertise is probably not server maintenance, graphic design – but content. Let them do that.
  • #6 NInaEmphasize brand: - Make sure you patrons are clear where they are (which library and which department). Are you serious (academic)? Fun (public or youth)? Specialized (subject or region)? Let that show - What the heck is your brand, anyway? Can you articulate and design one?Navigation: This is information architecture - Let your users where they are in the context of your site - Provide sitewide access to the services they use and need (not the same thing!) the most - Do you have a complex organization? Hard to set limits on how broad or how deep a subsection’s navigation can/should beCore Services & Functionality - What do you offer that’s unique, special, or just very useful? - Does hiding things that are *almost* that important hurt? - Can your patrons understand what your key services & functions are from a simple label?
  • #7 Ken
  • #8 NIna
  • #9 KenFunctionalityEnvironmentSecurityMaintenanceTerritoryContent, branding, messageStaffingCostChangeTechnical skillsAuthority (too much or too little)Where are users? They don’t care. They just want a website, dang it.
  • #10 Ken
  • #11 Nina
  • #12 Ken
  • #13 Nina
  • #14 Nina
  • #15 Ken
  • #16 Nina
  • #17 Ken
  • #18 Nina
  • #19 Ken
  • #20 Nina
  • #21 Ken
  • #22 NinaHttp://Docs.google.com