Since title tags are an exercise in telling people what they’ll find behind a link before they actually go there, the act of writing it requires you to justify the relevance of the link in the first place. If you’re at Apple’s website on the Macbook page, you might see a link to their Macbook Pro page. Makes logical sense, right? If you’re interested in a Macbook, you might be interested in stepping up to a Pro model. A title tag might say “Step up to a Macbook Pro for added performance, storage, memory and more.” The sentence establishes relevance and a reason why you should click or not click. Job done, move on.

Let’s take another example, however. Let’s say you’re on a university’s annual report site, on any page. There’s a global link to the chancellor’s site. You write a link title that says… what? “Go to the website for Chancellor so and so.” No, that’s too obvious. “Get information about Chancellor so and so.” No, that’s not relevant to the annual report as a whole. “Get Chancellor so and so’s impressions on the year’s events.” No, if that information existed, it would be part of the annual report site itself.

The above reasoning hints at the utility of link titles. Writing them forces you to double check your architecture. Why does a link exist on this particular page or in the global nav? Is it relevant to include here versus over there? How does the inclusion of this link in this area on this page help the visitor accomplish their goals or further their aims?

All of these questions should have been asked early in the process, but things slip through or circumstances change. Writing link titles help verify that you’re user experience goals are kept intact and on track. Try it, it works.Related Posts:

• Centralization Around Audience
• The Step Before Defining A Website’s Goals
• How To Turn Around A Problematic Site
• 4 Steps to Determine the Optimal Page Width for New Sites
• Link Journalism

// the end //

All employees at your school serve the greater ideals of the institution which, in turn, should ultimately revolve around the needs and wants of it’s various audiences. As such, an internal request must be measured against the established frameworks of the institution’s long term strategy. To say yes to every request will not only dilute the strategy and bottleneck any forward progress (because there will never be enough time and people to handle all requests), it’ll ultimately confuse and frustrate your true clients.Related Posts:

• Stick To Your Guns
• Marketing ≠ Visitor Experience
• The New University of Denver Site In A Nutshell
• Virtues of “The Site”
• There’s A Happy Medium Between Centralization & Decentralization

// the end //

This site used to be a fun place and I’m bringing that positive vibe back. So while I may continue to talk about web matters, I’ll mostly just write about my observations of the world. I hope that suffices to any readers left out there.Related Posts:

• Link Journalism
• Virtues of “The Site”
• Content Management Systems Aren’t Just For Techies
• Teens & Email
• Stick To Your Guns

// the end //

My current title is Web Designer/New Media Specialist, a moniker bestowed on me after our university’s restructuring. Before that, I was simply Web Designer. I’ll take a wild guess that these titles won’t be looked upon favorably by the admissions reviewers. After all, after 12 years in the business, I effectively have the same title as I did when I started. The cynics out there might say, well maybe you’re a crap designer. Yeah, maybe. But after 12 years in the business, my work must be somewhat passable. Maybe I’m a jerk and alienate myself into low level positions. Maybe my bosses have researched my online profiles and think I’m a liability. Whatever the real reasons, my own self diagnosis for a lack of impressive title is due to my personal motivations and the age of the web. 

So back to the meeting. I found myself in a strange, apologetic tone. Surely, I needed to excuse my lack of title. Ironically, after my meeting, I was to meet with the Chancellor and Provost to present ideas on how a new website would save the university money, allow us to be much more customer centric than ever before, produce content with less effort and, in general, be more nimble and current in our approach. Isn’t this the kind of presentation a mid level manager at a big company would give to senior management? I thought about this juxtaposition for the rest of the day. What’s in a title? Why are web world titles so… arbitrary? And how do we, as a community, effectively translate our contributions via titles to outsiders?

Do Web Titles Do Us Justice?

There’s no doubt that I’m on the low rung of my university’s hierarchy (though I consider that the university’s loss). I have a breadth and depth of experience that my organization could put to effective use. Instead, my school has proven unwilling, unable or, worst yet, indifferent to fully utilize me. Why? I certainly hope it’s not because of my title. How disappointingly sad would that be- not only for myself but for the school? Would my job, my credibility and my contributions be any different if I had a title like Director of Web Communications or Vice Chancellor of All Things Web? Given the web team’s tiny staff size, I don’t think my job nor my contributions would be much different, but credibility? Probably.

When you only have a couple warm bodies available to work on a site with tens of thousands of pages and millions of yearly visitors like we do, you can bet that lofty titles or not, everyone does grunt work, everyone sweats the details and everyone is accountable to visitors. That’s just how it is from a practical standpoint. In this regard, titles in our industry don’t matter. What does matter, at least in my experience, is the promise of making great things. The web world is littered with people who want to elevate the web, and hence the organization, to a higher level. That seems to be the major motivation rather than fancy titles, corner offices or windfall year-end bonuses (though I wouldn’t turn any of those things down along the way).

The View From the Outside

The web, as we know and interact with it today, is a very young industry- 15 years, perhaps? My executive MBA peers, in contrast, work in health, finance, sales, etc.- professions that have been around for centuries, even millennia. Is it any wonder our industry still debates what our titles should be? It’s still too young and needs to sort itself out. 

For example, I’m considered a generalist in the field- someone whose skill set crosses many specialized functions. Other people consider themselves specialists- someone who knows all the ins and outs within a particular area like Flash or Ruby on Rails. Which is the right approach? Is one type of person more “senior” than the other? Should one manage the other, but not vice versa? The web is so collaborative and job functions are so permeable, a sense of hierarchy hasn’t solidified and this causes people outside of the business to easily misunderstand what it is we do and the importance of our work to an organization. Those things are changing, but it is slow. As Jesse James Garrett in the podcast linked above says, things won’t markedly improve for us until our group begins to house the VP and C-level ranks of major organizations.

Until then, I would argue that titles act as shorthand for your professional status. That’s why people are so concerned with their titles (since I’ve largely worked in smaller organizations surrounded by like minded people, titles haven’t mattered much). But I don’t find this race to the top as prevalent in the web. Maybe our young age has everything to do with that. Since we’re all relatively young, perhaps there’s a generational shift away from placing so much power and respect into titles. I don’t know. All I do know is that the admissions people who review my executive MBA application may not understand what my title of Web Designer really means or confers upon me. Hopefully they do, but until I’m sure, it goes without saying that I need to ensure that my title doesn’t arbitrarily stereotype me, demote my contributions or limit my worth.Related Posts:

• Use link titles as a check on your architecture decisions
• Marketing ≠ Visitor Experience
• Link Journalism
• Higher Ed Sites Have A Huge Advantage: A Captive Audience
• Virtues of “The Site”

// the end //

So where does decentralization make sense? The obvious answer is content. Higher ed sites are large, if not huge, relative to many websites and the thought of centralizing that amount of content into a few hands doesn’t seem practical. The sheer workload would jeopardize the distribution of time sensitive information. Plus, no content person wants to work in a sweat shop environment were quality takes a backseat to simply getting the work out. And beyond even those practical concerns, will a content person be as passionate about every subject that comes across their desk as the people who live and breathe it?For those reasons, content ought to be unleashed.

This isn’t anything new Mike

OK, so a decentralized content scheme isn’t a new idea, but my point is that simply because it’s smart to decentralize content creation doesn’t mean ALL aspects of the web effort should go along with it. This includes strategy, information architecture, visual design and functionality. There’s no credible reason that I’m aware of that would cause me to believe that every dean, vice chancellor, and director at the university should control how their part of the website works or functions. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be at the table to discuss matters that affect them, but neither should they be allowed to dictate needs on a per site section basis either. This is how workloads get out of hand.

Give me an example

If group A wants to promote news, group B wants to promote events and group C wants to promote both, what happens in a decentralized world? The web team gives each group exactly what they want. But if information architecture is centralized, then you would look at all groups in totality. You would take all wants and needs into consideration en masse. Only then can you create a solution that can be sustained over the long haul in an efficient manner. In our example, you might come to the conclusion that lots of groups across campus will want to promote news and/or events. So instead of building standalone news and event solutions plus one that handles both, you could merge news and events into a single steam called what’s happening. Any group on campus could then tap into this single solution. Group A doesn’t have events? No problem, no events populate their content, but the “what’s happening” label still makes sense. Same goes for group B in reverse.

Technology folks will of course try to build solutions with modularity in mind, but this only goes so far. News and events is an easy example since we all know those ideas will port across many departments. But what about requests that have limited universal appeal or practicality? Do you build it? The answer lies in your overall strategy. 

You may not have a global strategy precisely because of the decentralized environment. But once centralization occurs, that all changes. You should have a basic understanding of what your site is supposed to achieve and for whom. In that light, a request for a specific feature that is only useful to a certain group or for a particular, somewhat rare occasion should be looked at suspiciously. If your site is supposed to communicate with prospective students and entice them to apply, then there may not be a good case, for example, in building a Blackboard login function. I’m not saying Blackboard doesn’t have utility, but not for your prospective student audience nor to achieve your goal to drive applications . The correct answer in this case would be a polite “no.”

Instead, I see many sites, our own included, take on projects to fulfill any and all requests without much critical thought as to their strategic value. So more projects enter the queue, timelines stretch out, both clients and customers get frustrated over the slow progress, staff morale suffers and the website becomes ever more confused. I would imagine that if you looked at your institution’s workload, you’d find a significant amount to be, at best, tangential to your main goals and, at worst, unrelated at all. Kill those projects and focus. Centralize the high level, strategic functions your group provides while you decentralize the ground level content that gives visitors localized flavor.Related Posts:

• Centralization Around Audience
• Why Decentralization Doesn’t Work
• Stick To Your Guns
• The Speed of Twitter
• Who is Your Client?

// the end //

Selling the general ideas about centralization is easy. Most people will see the utility and efficiency that a global site experience promises for both visitors and internal maintenance personnel. The problem comes when the idea is fully explored and all of its implications are brought to light. For some people or groups, the thought of sharing a single visitor experience with the rest of the university is a deal breaker. The art department doesn’t want to look like the business school, for instance. That’s a perfectly fine and logical way to feel, but it’s beside the point. Let’s explore why.

I argue that within a centralized system you must align the site’s organization and navigation based on audience type: prospective students, current students, employees, etc. This approach will force you to ask certain questions. For prospective students, one such question is “does an 18-year-old think in terms of department, school, college, and division names or in terms of subject matter?” Based on my research, the answer is subject matter (after all, high schools work this way). This suggests that the best method of navigation is therefore by subject matter, not individual unit names. And again, research shows this approach does indeed work well when tested. Given this exercise, the issue is not that the art department looks like the business school. That’s irrelevant because we’re not offering a navigation system that compares one department against another. Instead, we’re offering a navigation system based on subject matter and I think we’d all agree that individual degree programs shouldn’t have individualized brands. So, we can now conclude that a single visitor experience does not pigeon hole or force any internal group to act or be represented like any other group because we’ve abstracted that perspective away for a better one.Related Posts:

• Why Decentralization Doesn’t Work
• The Case for Centralization
• How To Turn Around A Problematic Site
• Centralization Around Audience
• A New Take on How to Find a Higher Ed Degree

// the end //

I’ll structure my review on the 2-2 style popular in the MBA program I’m in- two compliments, two criticisms. First up, two compliments.

It’s useful today—As a notoriously slow reader, I can happily state that this one is quick and easy. It’s less a narrative and more a bulleted list with lots of screengrabs. If you want expert opinion, support for your own work or just plain good advice, this is the book for you. Best of all, because it’s in such an easy to digest form, you can apply the insights the same day you read them. And, of course, it’s targeted to the higher ed space- a piece of the online world that normally doesn’t get center stage attention. That means everything you read, EVERYTHING, is practical and applicable.

Best of the best—I suppose it goes without saying, but I’ll state it anyway because it’s important. The book highlights some of the preeminent higher education sites out there. There’s no doubt that higher education suffers from poor management, poor focus, and poor ______ (you fill in the blank). Having a single place to examine the best of the best is both informative, but inspiring too. And as higher edu workers, inspiration can make the exceptionally hard days we all encounter easier to take. For that, I thank the authors.

Next up, two criticisms.

Universal takeaways—Like many sites, truly good cross pollination of content necessitates good metadata (data about data). It’s hard to do well, but when it is, a site can seem to read your mind as a visitor. It’ll anticipate what and where you want to go next. This book tries to do so by offering multiple ways- by school name, by student population, by type (public vs. private) and by region- to access all the reviews. Each school’s page also gives you a “comparable institutions” sidebar where you can cross reference any school with others in as close an apples to apples comparison as is possible. It’s an admirable approach and works, but it seems to come at a cost. I wish it had a single page or section devoted to high level takeaways- a quick reference of universal do’s and dont’s, if you will.

More background—This might be an unfair criticism, but I’ll put it out there anyway. As a usabilty/design centric book, it’s not about in-depth case studies. However, each school mentioned (there are 20), does come with an “about” page that highlights information like what CMS powers the site, who the members of the team are, what technologies are used, etc. I kept wishing the authors would elaborate or, at least, standardize what behind-the-scenes information was presented. As someone who has built websites for 10+ years, the back story can be some of the best takeaways to learn.

My final thought is, as is the custom for us web workers, a call to action. Buy the book. It’s a nice companion to the eduStyle site and highlights some of the best higher ed sites out there today. As such, we can all learn a few things from it. If my review doesn’t quite convince you to buy, you can always get a sample taste and decide for yourself. For me, it’s a winner.Related Posts:

• The Step Before Defining A Website’s Goals
• Higher Ed Sites Have A Huge Advantage: A Captive Audience
• A New Take on How to Find a Higher Ed Degree
• Centralization Around Audience
• How To Turn Around A Problematic Site

// the end //

In 2007, Jeffrey Zeldman proclaimed, “Let there be web divisions.” I can’t agree with him more. He specifically points out that the web shouldn’t be managed by either marketing or IT because neither group fully has the skill set to produce great web experiences. So guess which department at my university manages the website?

Surprise! It’s a trick question- both do.

I don’t want to regurgitate Zeldman’s post for he makes his case eloquently, but I can add my own specific reason why the web should be its own department as it relates to higher ed. In a word, connections. What I mean is that nothing on the web exists in isolation (or shouldn’t) like it does in the physical world. Because it doesn’t, the web needs to be managed by a group that understands the power of connections.

Here’s what I’ve found to be true in higher ed: there’s widespread belief that what it produces are standalone products. It might be due to the silo mentality that the organizational chart promotes, but essentially, a department thinks in terms of individual, isolated communication pieces: a brochure, a flyer, a magazine, a newsletter and yes, even a website. Those pieces are thought about only within their own context, not so much within the context of each other.

A magazine intended to cultivate connections with alumni is just that- a magazine. It gets produced on a regular basis, stories are written for it, ads are sold, it’s designed, printed and sent out. Wash, rinse, repeat. The online version is nothing more than a duplication of the printed piece. It’s organized by issue using the same stories, same images, same everything. Each “issue” is isolated from all the ones that preceded it. The physically isolated experience of reading a magazine has been ported to the web. The sense that the building block of the web, the link, could stitch stories and themes from multiple issues to one another is lost. Along with it comes the loss of a deeper experience for readers where similar stories or topics could inform each other and make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

A printed magazine, being a physical object in the world, can bring laser-like focus on a particular audience with a particular set of wants and needs and a particular end goal. It can bring that level of focus because it sits in isolation from donors, current students, prospective students, staff, etc. The web, on the other hand (and it’s not news to anyone reading this), is, in comparison, one stop shopping. It’s interconnected. You’ll find information for all audiences. A site can be sliced and diced into neat little properties (as it currently is for us), but that misses the point of the web entirely.

The web is a conversation as Zeldman would say, not a monologue. But in higher ed, monologues are standard procedure. The move toward a conversation is the battle, but one not easily won when the web is managed as though it’s just another marketing tool.

Leason learned: The web should be managed within its own division in order to gain impartiality, independence and efficiency of operations.Related Posts:

• Virtues of “The Site”
• The Case for Centralization
• Link Journalism
• The New University of Denver Site In A Nutshell
• Communicating With Students Beyond Email

// the end //

• Research
• Information architecture consideration
• Visual design consideration
• Final determination

1. Research

Your first step is homework. You want to find the maximum width your site can be in order to maximize the available space without going so large that you lose significant numbers of your audience due to low resolution monitors. The tightrope walk here begins with your own site’s analytics. If this is a new site where none existed before, skip this step or look at the stats, if possible, of another site with similar audience profiles. You can help inform this information by doing some online research to see what display resolution trends exist. As of this writing, 1024×768 or higher seems a safe bet. Your mileage may vary though depending on any unique audience traits (an intranet site where you know everyone’s exact display equipment).

Once you’ve established your maximum browser resolution, you can shave off some pixels to account for browser chrome- all the window borders, scrollbars, etc. The amount of chrome has dwindled down to zero, horizontally, for some browsers like Safari and Firefox on Mac, but others have not. Test multiple platform and browsers to nail down exactly how much room you need to allow for chrome. On top of browser chrome, you may wish to worry about whether people maximize their browser screens. For people will exceptionally large screens, the answer is likely no. Accommodating for this is impossible on a universal level as it’s different for each person out there, but you can shrink down your max size a bit more for this. How much is up to you.

After all of these variables are accounted for, let’s say you settle on 960 pixels as your optimal maximum horizontal width. Keep in mind that the operative word here is “maximum.” This is the limit you set for yourself. Anything inside of it is fair game. Research is used to help you determine the widest possibility. It says nothing about going smaller, but our next steps do so let’s continue.

2. Information Architecture

Ideally, by the time you begin your design phase, your information architecture work is solidified. You know the general needs of the site, what the page elements are on all the major page types and the kinds of content your site will need to support. With hope, you’ll also have enough flexibility for the site to grow and support new types of content as they come (you may already have a list of “phase 2″ ideas before phase 1 is launched, for example). Your task now is to use this information to inform how wide the site should be in order to accommodate the elements as best as possible.

Let’s say you have, among other page elements, four blocks of information you need to communicate. Since each of those four blocks are equally important, the plan is to show them horizontally across the page next to one another. You now have a math problem on your hands (it’s easy though): 960 pixels ÷ 4 equal blocks = 240 pixels per block. The page can now be divided into 4 equal columns to house the information in a nice, clean manner. You might say you have the basis for a design grid, but not quite. Let’s factor in design considerations next.

3. Visual Design

Information architecture leads us to a four column structure, but from a design perspective, we may consider it too limiting. There may be pages that need smaller columns widths to house information (maybe a page with thumbnails images, for instance). On the flip side, you don’t want too many columns either or the grid options become so numerous, the entire purpose is defeated. You ideally want flexibility, but not too much.

Let’s consider a grid composed of 10 equal columns with 9 equal gutters between them. Let’s also say we wish to make our gutters 10 pixels wide for a total gutter width of 90px. Subtract that from the 960 pixel max width we’ve already established and we’re left with 870px. Divide that by 10 and we arrive at a grid with 10 columns each 87 pixels wide with a 10 pixel gutter between each for separation. Our 10/9 grid works well. But we have a problem. 

From our IA exploration, we know a four column grid is best for the elements on the page. Four doesn’t divide evenly into our 10 column grid which poses a design problem for us. Do we have to go back to he drawing board? Not quite.

4. Final determination

We don’t have to start over, just modify any of the variables so far:

• We can work out a different solution from an IA perspective that doesn’t depend on the grid to be successful
• We can choose a different design grid to work within or
• We need to disprove our research or assumptions about our 960 pixel maximum width

Having just spent a good amount of effort determining our maximum width, we don’t want to revisit it. And let’s say that we’re fully confident that our four block IA solution is the best course of action. That leaves us to find another design grid. So let’s see where that leads us.

We feel a 10 pixel gutter is a solid choice for our needs so we keep that variable intact. We also know that our final grid needs to be divisible by four while still being flexible, but not too flexible. So let’s try an 8 column grid with 7 gutters. The equation will look like this:

(8 columns * 110 pixels each) + (7 gutters * 10 pixels each) = 950px

We notice that as long as the columns and gutters are equal width to one another respectively, there is no acceptable equation where we come out to an even 960 pixels as our research tells us is best. However, since 960 is the MAXIMUM width, we are free to work at any width in between. An eight column grid can be reconfigured by pairing columns together to get a four column structure so our IA needs are met. The 8/7 system, while a bit less flexible than our preferred 10/9 system, still allows many combinations from a design perspective so we determine that it is an acceptable system for design purposes. We could add another pixel to each column for a final width of 958px or one extra pixel to each gutter for a final 957px, but we prefer the roundness of 950 and decide to leave things there.Related Posts:

• A New Take on How to Find a Higher Ed Degree
• The New University of Denver Site In A Nutshell
• The Step Before Defining A Website’s Goals
• Centralization Around Audience
• Use link titles as a check on your architecture decisions

// the end //

To start, I find that any higher ed site’s success, to varying degrees, is predicated upon the success of the underlying organization’s culture. Karlyn hits upon this idea, but let’s explore the idea further. A good study of contrasts is Bush versus Obama. Bush’s administration was secretive. They weren’t transparent to traditional media and certainly weren’t blogging about their grand plans or otherwise harnessing the power of the internet. Conversely, Obama, through his campaign and now in the White House, has embraced the web. It’s too early to tell how his efforts will turn out, but initial signs point toward Obama being highly transparent. Whitehouse.gov proves the fact with blogging, video, RSS, etc.- all the tools we champion. If we worked under the Bush administration, our efforts would likely have been wasted. Under Obama, however, we would likely flourish. Culture matters.

There’s an inherent connection between an organization’s website and its culture. There’s a 1-to-1 relationship in many regards. For example, if the culture is one of decentralized control (something I talk at length about at this site), it’ll most certainly be reflected in the site through a blizzard of different looking, different navigating and different functioning department level sites. The org chart dictates the website’s structure- the 1-to-1 relationship in action. If you wish to do structure your site differently than this, then you need to change the organization’s underlying “departmental think.” Therein lies the rub. How can you change the website if the culture doesn’t change with it? You might be able to achieve change at the website level, but without the commensurate change in culture, it’s likely your changes will fizzle.

So how can you make substantive change and make it stick? Begin to the 1-to-1 relationship idea with those above you. The people in upper management are smart- regardless of the stereotypes which portray them as otherwise. However, their problems and issues are, for them, larger than the web. I think the key is to show them that the web is simply a microcosm of their larger issues because of the 1-to-1 relationship. If you can convince them of that slight change in perspective, then you might get a crack at something big.

Upper management may regard the web as a cost saving tool for communications, for instance, but its insight ends there. What this scenario lacks is the ability to get management to go the necessary distance to realize that the website is a reflection of  the organization itself. If you want to utilize the web as a cost saving tool, then it needs to come with a commensurate change in culture in order to bake in those savings. You have to ask tough questions and demand answers. If we move some amount of our printed materials online to save printing and delivery costs, will print designers lose their jobs? Will the newsroom writers write fewer stories, but do so in both print and online version? Does news even have to be written by “official” writers as opposed to having an editor who reviews news written by people at large across campus? The onion layers, once peeled back, expose the true trade-offs and choices that need to be made. None of that deep thinking is expressed in “let’s save money by using the web.” Planting the seeds of this idea will begin to open people to the substantive issues at hand which in turn will lead to better understanding and willingness to lend attention and action.Related Posts:

• What Higher Ed Sites Could Learn From Barack Obama
• Communicating With Students Beyond Email
• CMS- Proprietary or Open Source?
• Why Decentralization Doesn’t Work
• The Case for Centralization

// the end //