 |
 |
Hello Mike, I think we broadly agree on principles but perhaps not on all aspects of how they should be applied. Comments below. On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Mike McConnell wrote: > Hi Rick, > > >To save another post (sighs of relief from all :-), Mike McConnell said:- > > > >"Departments should of course be able to control their own content, but > >they are not independent entities and I would question whether they should > >be able to publish materials without at least some form of centralised > >editorial control." > > > >This sounds like a recipe for disaster unless handled very carefully. I > >make small updates virtually every day so to have these vetted would be > >unworkable. If Mike meant that the overall content be vetted - who is to > >judge what is relevant to the needs of a particular department? > >Departments have a range of "customers" with very varied needs and I > >don't believe that anyone would be capable of grasping these for every > >department in an institution. > > My concern is not to decide what is relevant to the needs of a particular > department. Nor, obviously, would I wish to vet every single update you > make. It is the _institution's_ concern, however, that the information any > given department puts up is accurate, authoritative: the definitive version > that supports the institution's objectives. Given resource constraints, > having a centralised web team is, in my opinion, the best way to exercise > this form of editorial control. > > This does NOT mean: > > - pulling the plug on your site > - telling you your subject specialisms > - imposing a top down 'solution' > > It does mean, however, ensuring that: > > - department sites are accessible Agreed. > - departments are not duplicating information provided elsewhere, or > information they do not 'own', such as clearing information, recruitment > information Hmm, sticky ground here. Departments have a valuable contribution to make to these areas. Sure, the primary information should be centralised but departments know their own areas and likely problems much better than anyone acting centrally. eg. Prospective students with questions relating to particular courses (or to clearing) are far better and more efficiently dealt with by the department's own admissions officer through the department's own web pages. From a departmental point of view it is also necessary to ensure that information IS provided centrally as and when needed. At Reading, through the auspices of our web support team, we are looking at collecting and collating information on a faculty by faculty basis. There is often much more commonality between depts. in the same faculty than across the board. > - appropriate language is used (international audience, prospective students) > - information is structured logically > - information is relevant and timely > - contact details are available > - pages work across browsers/operating systems/screen resolutions > - copyright is not being breached with images or other content > - course material is correct (contractual implications) Agreed on all, but none of these require any degree of central control save that there needs to be an agreed mechanism for dealing with defaulters. > I could go on, of course. So could I :-) > I don't doubt for a minute, that you, personally, Rick, do all this > already. But what if you were to leave? What if the person to whom site > maintenance fell was not as thorough/literate/technically skilled as you? > We're all pretty much agreed that the HEI web sites are under-resourced and > that we rely on the good will of departmental enthusiasts to maintain > sites. There are plenty of departments in my institution who do a wonderful > and creative job of maintaining their sites; equally there are those who do > not. That is why some form of centralised co-ordinating/editorial/support > service is so important. Ah, yes, a support service is very desirable and I'm with you all the way - but only prescription when/if a particular problem is identified. > A second point is that a departmental site should not just reflect the > particular concerns of the department, but should also have esprit de > corps; viz., it should assist and support the institution (of which it is a > constituent part) in reaching its goals: it is a two way street! Which is precisely what one agrees to do, at least in my institution, when one signs up as an information provider. > > who is to judge what is relevant to the needs of a particular > department? > > Quis custodiet ipso custodes, eh? > > Quite, but equally it is not the role of the department (alone) to decide > institutional objectives, by its independent actions. It should be a > partnership, not a competition! Precisely, partnership not dictatorship is the operative word. -- Rick _______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Rick Hobson Tel: +44-(0)118 931-6375 <[log in to unmask]> Fax: +44-(0)118 931-6331 Chemistry Dept. University of Reading Blame RG6 6AD, UK Somebody http://www.chem.rdg.ac.uk Else _______________________________________________________________________