 |
 |
Hi Rick, Thanks for replying to my post. > > Nevertheless, people will form impressions of institutions based on the > > appearance of their web sites. As has already been noted, PR departments > > and the like spend lots of time and money perfecting corporate branding. > > Regardless of the desirability of this, it is a reality. > >This sounds rather like "never mind the quality, feel the width". >Reality or not, perhaps this money could be better spent. What I meant by this was if an institution makes a considerable investment in establishing a corporate identity, with strategic objectives in mind, then it is in that institution's interests to ensure that all PR media it produces should reflect that identity. I believe that if treated correctly this can not only reflect well on the institution, but also enhance users' experience of the web site. Rather than being an add-on, if treated sympathetically, corporate IDs can enhance the presentation of content. I don't doubt you've visited heavily branded sites that have a dull feel - this is a result of poor graphic design, not a fault with branding itself. It is my experience that a wide variety of departmental web sites of differing ages, appearance, relevance and style result in an uneven, confusing and disjointed viewing experience for users. I have no evidence to suggest this discourages customers from dealing with an institution, but based on my own experience of third party sites, it discourages me! Branding and corporate ID does not have to mean huge logos on each page - it can mean standard fonts, standard links, standard layout: elements that help visitors orient themselves. > > Allowing departmental web sites to grow unchecked means that the > > institution is not utilising its website strategically to reach > > institutional objectives. > >I don't think I ever suggested that other design elements are unimportamt >etc. (see my original post). Your latter comment seems to suggest that you >wish to control growth (and therefore content?) of departmental sites. >Is this likely to benefit an institution? 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. > > It is possible to have individuality from department to department AND have > > standard corporate elements! This means that the institution/SMT's > > objectives can be met, without stifling any extant ecology of developers > > across the campus. > >I agree with this, the problem is in defining the elements which are >_really_ necessary and convincing the departmental information providers >of this. I thoroughly concur. Without the participation of the relevant people in departments, you cease to have an ecology, and you then run the risk of the dull corporate brochureware we all know and hate! Cheers, Mike ------------ Mike McConnell Web Team Manager [log in to unmask] http://www.abdn.ac.uk/web University of Aberdeen Directorate of Information Systems and Services Edward Wright Building Dunbar Street Aberdeen AB 24 3UF Tel: +44 (0)1224 27 2602 Fax: +44 (0)1224 27 3372