Comments on: Taking the idea of a cohesive Web template in a slightly different direction

By: Ric Dragon

Ric Dragon — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:54:49 +0000

In one way, I really do think the Art department should conform – if for no other reason but consistency of branding. A university is still a branded entity. BUT! Here’s the clincher – and I’ve seen it in non-academic organizations – if a sub entity does not have the freedom to deviate sufficiently, they’ll subvert the parent organization, and go rogue. And since this is detrimental to the parent organization, a strategy MUST be devised allowing for a certain amount of autonomy, while maintaining brand standards.

Adherence to branding standards is a concept though that must come from the highest level stakeholder. If it doesn’t, it will be undermined.

By: Mike Rivera

Mike Rivera — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:52:45 +0000

This discussion centers around departments wanting or needing to be different. I’d like to ask why we offer navigation systems based on departments to begin with. Degree programs are what prospects are interested in. Allegiance to a department doesn’t come into play until a prospective student becomes a current student. Given that, I think a better navigation system is one where subject matter take center stage, not departments. Once you turn that corner, this entire thread becomes moot. More here:

http://www.heavywinter.com/2009/04/marketing-≠-visitor-experience/

By: wilhb81

wilhb81 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:40:01 +0000

First of all, Rachel. I didn’t think you’re a hypocrite person, as you’ve spoken out the points here! It’s an awesome article, and do you mind if I forward it to my friends/colleagues? :)

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:43:53 +0000

There is facet to this conversation that must be mentioned. And that’s the issue of maintenance. When everybody is using the same template(s), it’s much easier to switch gears and make sweeping changes when necessary.

That is, IF you’re making good use of top-level style sheets and well-structured code. (if not, then you’re canceling out half of the benefits of a standard look & feel)

I’m going to skip some of my arguments and simply say that when a university has a good set of customizable templates with content management to boot, then smaller departments and colleges WITHIN that institution don’t have to hire web designers and coders anymore. They can hire CONTENT CREATORS, digital storytellers, marketing and PR-types that ALSO manage websites.

Such a waste, for a university to have a weak, fractured web presence, complicated by different sets of web people/teams solving all the same problems in isolation. When ultimately, all that’s needed is a solid, yet flexible sandbox for EVERYBODY to play in.

By: Aaron Blakeley

Aaron Blakeley — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:17:13 +0000

I feel that if you are going to stray from the template it should be very controlled. There should however be no doubt that they are still on the same site. However I see no reason that all departments cant have the same template. The template is for displaying the branding and personality of the entire campus as a whole. It should be up to the individual departments to display the content needed to give an impression of the department they should be able to do this through the CMS or content submitted to the web development team.

By: kristin greenberg

kristin greenberg — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:11:14 +0000

Agreed; focus must remain on USERS. I think it’s important to let each department tell its own story w/in the university setting – they are distinctly different from one another. But they are all chapters in the same book, and someone — and this is our job as communicators — needs to carefully weave those stories together. A template can help, but I think a series of similar, yet distinct, templates combined with a well thought-out Web strategy can serve to help departments feel special, while still maintaining an overall cohesiveness.

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:31:56 +0000

With all due respect, the Art Department and anyone else who plays the “but we’re special!” note must know it is overplayed. If they believe that, they are focusing on their needs and not those of their audience.

We are long past the time when we didn’t have research and experts to rely on in this arena. I strongly recommend two things:

1. Best practices. There are plenty of go to resources but I like The Design of Sites by Van Duyne, Landay, and Hong. They’ve broken sites down into themes and components based on research. Despite the wailing and gnashing of Art Dept teeth, audiences really do expect consistency (or conformity) across the board. Tell the Art Dept story, but do it in ways that are consistent with the entire university.

2. Interview your audience. Dictum number one: “you are not your users.” Despite our best intentions (and those of the Art Dept), do we really know our audiences? Most of us do not. Interview them. You’ll find their expectations support best practices.

By: Dustin Mazon

Dustin Mazon — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:27:58 +0000

That was very clever. I will have to use that one at my next design meeting. ;)

By: Rachel Reuben

Rachel Reuben — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:16:16 +0000

It’s brilliant, isn’t it?

By: Drew

Drew — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:07:27 +0000

I’m still laughing in my chair thinking about Todd’s cookie-cutters & kids analogy. So true.