When did you start
using a CMS at Emory?
Until the last year or so, Drupal was used for the library’s
website for several years. We recently
switched over to Cascade.
When did that switch
over occur?
The switchover occurred in August 2013 around the same time
we targeted for major changes to the library website.
What were the motivations
for adopting Cascade and leaving Drupal behind?
Well, I believe there were a few contributing factors. The library and IT divisions combined at
Emory right before our change over to Cascade.
This transition sort of helped bring about larger discussions about the
library’s web presence and how it fit into the university’s use of Cascade. This meant that there was a desire to create a
uniform technology environment across campus. Library IT, library leadership, and campus
web development team began to have discussions about the library website and
its management.
What role did the
library have in this transition?
We didn’t get to choose the new CMS itself. But, the change correlated with a large
overhaul of the library website. Librarians,
library IT, and the university web development team worked together to
facilitate these changes.
What are the
important benefits or advantages of Cascade over Drupal?
The largest benefit of switching from Drupal to Cascade was
the opportunity to make university website management more uniform for the
information technology team. Cutting down on the number of platforms that need
to be supported makes it easier to focus management and support efforts.
How was the learning
curve?
Impact on the learning curve was mitigated somewhat by the
university's Web design group, which offered training for library employees.
They also created templates for most of the basic content created by library
staff, and a guide to show new users how to use the system.
Also, some of our staff was already working consistently with
the WDG, so that helped establish lines of communication and understanding that
helped make our change to Cascade a positive one.
The majority of the back-end coding is still handled by the
WDG. I would say, however, that some
knowledge of coding is advantageous in editing via Cascade, though not
necessary. The differences in Drupal and Cascade Server
in basic page management, however, are somewhat minimal.
How is the content
managed for the library website?
The content for the library website is managed across
different departments with people who have editing rights.
How many editors does
the library have?
I believe the library has about eight editors.
Richard McNeal
MLIS7505
Dr. Yang
5/31/14
Assignment 3: Interview with an Emerging Technologies Librarian about CMS
Introduction
The use of content management systems for library websites can provide both opportunities and challenges for library staff. CMS can provide uniformity, streamline branding across multiple websites within an organization, and create more efficient workflow. Conversely, some challenges can crop up related to training of librarians and staff. To gain a real world perspective on this topic, I interviewed Chris Pollette – Emerging Technologies Librarian at Emory University. Chris focuses on user education, connecting emerging technologies with research and teaching needs, and the development of web content as well as marketing of library services and collections. In our discussion, Chris discussed moving from Drupal to Cascade, working with the university wide web development team, and training librarians and other staff who were new to Cascade. This paper will outline the main points communicated by Chris in our discussion. I will also draw from our main CMS article discussed in our course in providing analysis of the interview.
Interview Findings
In the beginning of 2013, discussions were held with the campus web development team, library IT, and library leadership about the opportunity to migrate to a new content management system. This new opportunity was partly influenced by the organizational change whereby libraries and IT services were combined into one division. This helped facilitate broader considerations about the library’s web presence. A top-down decision was made for the library to migrate from Drupal to Cascade, given Cascade’s wider use across campus. At that time, Drupal was the library’s content management system that had been in place for several years. This decision was primarily motivated by a desire to create a uniform web environment throughout campus, leveraged by the new organizational change.
Chris expressed that there were a few advantages to migrating to Cascade. The central advantage was related to reduction of multiple web platforms across campus and divisions, thus allowing staff to focus on management and support efforts. Training of librarians and staff was a more complex issue. Chris noted that the university’s web design group played a central role in training library staff on Cascade. This included creating templates commonly used by library staff and a guide on for new users. Any coding was mostly handled on the back end by the web development group. Though Chris mentioned that in-depth knowledge of coding wasn’t absolutely necessary to use Cascade and other content management systems, general familiarity with coding was helpful when editing pages and content. Regarding differences between Drupal and Cascade, Chris noted that there are differences in page management, but these differences did not provide huge barriers to the migration. Chris also that selected librarians in various departments throughout the library were given content editing rights. This was similar to the arrangement with Drupal, but done on a broader scale with Cascade with about eight editors.
Chris did provide a few insights into the relationship between the library and the broader campus web team. As previously stated, the move to Cascade was in part motivated by an organizational change, thus coming from a top-down decision. Additionally, this migration was done in concert with a major change to the layout and design of the library’s website. These changes were implemented in a web working group that included librarians, library IT, and the campus web development team. Chris noted that this working group opened lines of communication about the library’s web presence that ultimately made the migration to Cascade easier.
Analysis
Our assigned reading for content management systems provided broader context and insight for many of the findings in my interview. In her article, Sara Connell conducted a survey with college and university libraries to find whether they adopted CMSs and their experience with such an adoption. One main connection between my interview and the article is the motivation and reasons for migrating to a new CMS. Chris noted that the migration to Cascade was not the result of a choice, but rather a top-down decision about the library’s place in the university wide web presence. Sara Connell’s (2013) findings reflected this trend in that only nine percent of libraries in her survey had a real choice into whether they wanted to transition to a CMS (p. 51). Chris’ experience certainly fit this trend.
Another additional point of analysis is the role of library staff in the subsequent migration website maintenance. While the library did not have a say in choosing a CMS, the website changes that coincided with the CMS transition involved librarians, library IT staff, and the campus web team. In addition, the campus web team did provide the library with templates and guides in using and navigating Cascade. Interestingly, Connell’s (2013) assertion that libraries must have involvement in the editing rights and maintenance of their websites seems to have been integrated in Chris’ case (p. 54).
A final point of discussion focuses on the benefit of allowing multiple users to edit content. The training and tutorials provided by the campus web team allowed the library to assign content editors in multiple departments. Connell (2013) notes that one main benefit of CMSs is the “…ability to give multiple people, regardless of their web authoring skills, the opportunity to edit webpages (p. 52).” This advantage was certainly leveraged in Emory’s case with eight editors. This number of editors fit with about 13% of libraries in the survey (p. 52).
Conclusion
Speaking with Chris about the recent switch from Drupal to Cascade and the subsequent website changes highlighted many of the findings in Connell’s survey. The top-down trend of migrating to a new CMS, the library’s limited role in CMS selection, and the training of library staff were key points from the interview that paralleled trends in academic libraries. As Chris noted and Connell argued, giving the library a concrete role in managing a CMS and its web content is critical. Library websites provide critical access to resources and library information, which necessitates strong involvement in its web presence. Collaborative implementation of CMSs in academic libraries can help improve workflow on the back end and user experience on the front end.
References
Connell, R. S. (2013). Content Management Systems: Trends in Academic Libraries. Information
Technology and Libraries, 32(2), 42–55. doi:10.6017/ital.v32i2.4632
No comments:
Post a Comment