On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Mike McConnell wrote:
> >Thanks Adrian, a good point. This highlight what I believe to be the
> >wooly thought regarding branding. The printed page is not the same as a
> >departmental web page.
>
> 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. Stories abound
about how money has been frittered away on such things.
> While I concur that visitors to web sites will (of course) want information
> that is relevant, easy to find etc., I think it is naive to suggest that
> other design elements are unimportant, or that they do not have an effect
> on visitors. Branding and corporate style are not (necessarily) the enemies
> of organic web site growth. Clear and consistent use of logos, fonts, links
> and statements of ownership can enable users to quickly assimilate site
> structure and layout and thus facilitate the uptake of information.
> 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? My experience (as valid as any
other expressed on this list) is that heavily branded sites have a
dull, stilted feel. They certainly don't encourage me to want to visit
the institution.
> 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. Writing as one of the latter, nothing posted to this list today
has served to change my opinions expressed in my initial post.
--
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
_______________________________________________________________________
|