PebbleRoad Studios

Articles

The Changing Face of University Websites

Aug 17 2006, By Maish Nichani, (21) Comments

Many university websites are in redesign mode. And that’s good news for the web standards and user experience communities. It signifies not only that the community initiatives are bearing fruit, but also that we can now expect to see a much faster and wider adoption of these initiatives, especially in the public sector. This article lists some important areas of focus of these redesigns.

Background

In a recent project for a local university, I looked at the pages of 25 universities, mostly from the US, UK, Australia – the countries that local students look to for higher education studies. In this respect, the sample size being terribly small, I cannot say for certain that what I’ve learned is taking place universally. But the areas of change are so fundamental (and exciting) that I just had to write about it.

University websites tend to be more complicated than corporate websites. Here are some reasons why:

  • Difficultly in defining a common vision: unlike corporate websites, it is difficult for a university to get all of its schools, divisions, centers, etc., to agree on a common vision for communicating on the web. This is a classic example of a house-of-brands or a branded-house conflict.  Only the administrative offices are under the fold for obvious reasons. Thus, it is not uncommon to come across a school or a division crafting their own vision, often citing the hyper competitive education marketplace as their main reason (e.g. business schools).
  • 'Not invented here' syndrome: because of the above, web design tends to fall into the hands of many different local webmasters who make decisions based on local directives – usually motivated by one-upmanship. This results in the hotchpotch that users finally get to see, and unfortunately, to experience.
  • Lack of knowledge in user-centered design: this is crucial one. Because the needs of the user (or as Don Norman would say, people) does not take center stage, as the above two points show, design decisions are based on varying principles and random rationales leading to haphazard design outcomes. Unless there’s common understanding of user needs this is going to be a problem area for some time to come.

Those in the know will have the urge to add to this list, but I guess the above is enough to provide hints of the complexity involved in the design and maintenance of university websites.

Now, let’s see some areas of focus of the redesigns and how different universities are doing them.

1. Web standards

This is the big change. XHTML markup (usually 1.0 Transitional) and CSS are finding widespread acceptance. Some universities go even further. The University of Florida website is mentioned in the Professional CSS book for its CSS work and on its printer friendly pages (largely based on this A List Apart article).

University of Oxford pages validate as HTML Strict but it is still a table-based layout.

Monash University is known for its emphasis on accessibility, but still displays a table-based layout. The same goes for the University of Cambridge.

Michigan State University not only validates as 1.0 strict but also has a very clean table-less markup.

Imperial College London provides the ability to resize fonts (for IE) and uses 1.0 Strict doc type.

Here are more that are doing a good job with web standards. 

Cornell University, Princeton University, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Dartmouth College, Bucknell University, University of Melbourne, University of Wisconsin, La Trobe University, Seattle University, University of Michigan, University of Sheffield, Ohio State University.

2. Information architecture

Organization scheme

If you visit some of the websites mentioned above, you’ll notice that the top-level structure is somewhat similar across many websites—a dual organization scheme, one topic or subject-based, the other audience-based.
For example,

Information For (audience): Prospective students, Current Students, Faculty/Staff, Visitors & Family, Media, etc.

Information About (subject): The University, Schools & Courses, Research, Campus, Services, etc.

Different universities have different items listed under the scheme depending on their focus. For example, Monash University has ‘International Students’ under its audience-based scheme, simply because Monash is very strong in marketing education in South Asia.

Main navigation

Many universities now use the Yahoo! style directory structure on their homepage to provide hints (trigger words) to the content contained within the sections. For example, the About section on the University of Florida’s homepage is represented as follows:

About UF [Administration, Maps, Tours, Facts, Giving, Jobs, News, Spotlights…]

In fact, UFL uses the same strategy for all their lower level administrative pages too.

Here are others that use the same strategy:

Michigan State University, Dartmouth College, University of Wisconsin, MIT, UC Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania.

Knowing the complexity in managing numerous sources of information for different audiences, and having all of it crisscross different stakeholders, it comes as no surprise that this strategy is becoming popular with university websites.

Also, a usability study has shown this technique to be quite intuitive.

Furthermore, this strategy enables the university to be more responsive to user needs. For example, only for a specific duration of time, few weeks before convocation and a few weeks after convocation, your search logs might show an increase in the number of searches for convo, convocation, convocation dates, etc. With the trigger words approach the Webmaster can insert the ‘convocation’ trigger word under the appropriate category thereby catering to a temporal, but important, info need. 

Utility navigation

The following are quite common utility navigation options present on many university websites: Sitemaps, A-Z lists, Calendars, Maps, Directories and Search.

There is another —Quick links—provide shortcuts to frequently used information that cannot fit into the primary navigation.

Sitemaps and A-Z lists are present as content pages while the rest are web apps.

The web apps are the usual problem areas. These are usually not very user friendly. Web2.0 and AJAX can definitely make inroads here for the benefit of all (opportunity here AJAX gurus).

Here are some utility navigation examples: Princeton University, University of FloridaMonash University, University of Pennsylvania.

3. Homepage, News & RSS

University homepages are also showing a common structure. Without going too much into the layout of the design, given below is a page description diagram that shows the different components on the homepage and their importance.

Although many university websites treat the publication of news, events and spotlights (a featured story) as an independent subsite, usually in the form of a News Office, some websites, most notably the MIT News Office, professionally manages both the gathering and publication of news and related items. So, any MIT school or division can submit news worthy items on this website.

There is also a News Writing Guide available on this website to aid on writing effective news items.

Needless to mention that most dynamic items such as news, events, spotlights, etc., are syndicated by RSS, finally.

4. Branding

This has always been a problem area for university websites: how to maintain the presence of the university brand when used in together with the school and divisional sub-brands. And the problem is even more intense when the sub-brand is more popular than the main (mother) brand. Thus it is not uncommon to find school deans fighting for more independence and the university communications department resisting the breakup. In short, this is the same branded house vs. house of brands dilemma.

Some university websites are trying to find common ground with different strategies. For example,

  • Cornell University provides the typical main brand/sub-brand strategy: consistent header with a placeholder for the faculty name.
  • Monash University provides the same as Cornell but also color codes the different faculty websites.
  • UW Madison gives 2 template color options with a consistent top-bar with the option of not displaying the logo.
  • Ohio State University requires that all of its websites display at minimum a narrow red-grey top bar. If a faculty website has a logo it can appear on the top-left or bottom-left as a “signoff”.

Now, if you take a look at the faculty or school websites of the universities listed above, you’ll notice that not all are in the common, consistent fold. Thus, even with the usage guidelines clearly stated, many faculty or school websites have an independent look and feel.

The real reason could be that the migration of a faculty or school website is an effort intensive task. It takes years to get all of the university subsites into a common fold.

Conclusion

This is very brief look at university websites. There is so much more taking place behind the scenes. Only the people working on such redesigns day and night know the enormous effort required to push forward in very trying situations – a change process on a massive scale and with multiple stakeholders. There will be many ups and downs, but the most interesting part is that there will be experimentations. And it will these experimentations that, I hope, will transfer to areas that the user experience and web standards communities find hard to reach.

Have you come across a university website redesign approach that is breaking new ground? If yes, then use the comments section below to share the learning.

21 comments so far

The commenting section is closed for this article.

1

What a timely discussion! I’m about to start a redesign and have noticed that some universities rotate spotlight items with each pageload, while others keep the content live for a day or week before demoting the story and eventually placing it in the archive. I’m not keen on pageload rotation because I think users will be frustrated by disappearing content. Any thoughts?

By Micah Ovadia on Aug 18 2006 | comment permalink

2

Micah: UFL, http://www.ufl.edu has fly-out menu to show the spotlight options. Also, they rotate the spotlights every 5 secs or so. This is one option.

The other is to use a persistent thumbnail layer at the bottom showing all the spotlight options and a link to the archives. I think this is a better option.

By Maish Nichani on Aug 19 2006 | comment permalink

3

I got these links from the referrer logs:

New directions for the UTSWeb (University of Technology, Sydney)
http://datasearch.uts.edu.au/iml/webdev/utsweb.cfm

and from there, to
Navigation and Content on university home pages (Melbourne University)
http://www.unimelb.edu.au/webcentre/docs/peer_sites_report_v1_0.pdf

By Maish Nichani on Aug 21 2006 | comment permalink

4

I went through a recent redesign and I think this article really hits home. I am a designer at a college of a larger university. Mays Business School at Texas A&M;University. I would say I am at about 90% plus for the things that you mentioned in the article. You were really dead on for a whole university or college redesign. There are a few things that I tweaked do to the fact that I am a sub-brand of the larger university brand

http://mays.tamu.edu/

By Matt Herzberger (website) on Aug 21 2006 | comment permalink

5

Nice synthesis—your diagram especially sums the trends up nicely.  We just launched a redesign of Humboldt State University’s main site: http://www.humboldt.edu paring it down to pretty much only those items in your diagram.  We are getting many positive comments about the site being simple and uncluttered-- I think a lot of universities have too much information on the main page.  This is likely due to politics-- everyone wants to have their pet program on the main page and there is a lot of pressure to please everyone.

By Andrea (website) on Aug 22 2006 | comment permalink

6

Matt: how are you managing the sub-brand? What strategies are you using?

Andrea: Wonderful use of the guide (explore, inquire, visit, apply) to start the interaction.

Talking about the minimalist approach, here’s another one that I’m not seeing, the reliance on global navigation. Jared Spool mentioned it first here:
http://tinyurl.com/bnj93

Do you think it’s more true for uni websites than others?

By Maish Nichani on Aug 22 2006 | comment permalink

7

Here’s another usability study that might be useful: Dey Alexander (2005) ”How usable are university web sites?”, winner of the Best Paper award at last year’s Ausweb WWW conference.

The Ausweb archive also has a more durable link for the Melbourne University study mentioned in comment 3.

Several university-based case studies were presented at Ausweb06, though these mostly dealt with subsites and specific functionality that are unique to universities (eg a searchable list of courses and subjects).

By flipsockgrrl (website) on Aug 22 2006 | comment permalink

8

I’m not the head communications person so I can give the official answer but I know that we align ourselves as “Mays Business School at Texas A&M;University” we have our own mark or logo that is not that of the university. I dont know that we use any of the university marks. I believe it is farely common among business school to have a sub brand to that of the university since it is a very competative market. Business colleges or schools also usually recieve more donor money than other colleges or departments so they are many times named after a large donor. You can view our mark here

http://mays.tamu.edu/

By Matt Herzberger (website) on Aug 22 2006 | comment permalink

9

Great article.  I’d like to add UT Austin http://www.utexas.edu to the list of university sites that are striving hard to meet web standards.  We redesigned our Home Page Jan 2006 to meet XHTML 1.0 strict and to use css layout.

We are weeks away from launching our 2nd level templates using XHTML 1.0 strict and css layout.  We hit a snag on ems and are having to do some tweaking so we don’t break any current sites.

As for the delicate game of branding, we created a simple UT wordmark that needs to be included at the top of all pages.  Then we gave our departments choices as to whether they wanted a “Full UT Template” or to have more flexibility and go with a “Minimal Template”. 

Do note...that these templates were first introduced in March 2002...and are not XHTML 1.0 strict or layed out in CSS...YET!  That is what we are getting ready to roll out in a few weeks.

Hooray for the changing face of the University Web!  Hooray for web standards!  Most importantly, hooray for a web that is accessible to everyone on everything!

By glenda sims (website) on Aug 23 2006 | comment permalink

10

very useful and comprehensive article. just on the subject of web standards it may be of interest that the site i (try to) manage - http://www.salford.ac.uk - was one of the first UK uni sites to switch to table-less, web standards based layout back in 2003. not claiming that it’s a an outstandingly perfect example (concessions had to be made, compromises here and there), but considering i did it pretty much as a team of one, it’s not all bad.

By patrick h. lauke (website) on Aug 24 2006 | comment permalink

11

Matt, Glenda and Patrick, thanks for sharing.

Patrick, kudos to your foresight! You should be proud.

By Maish Nichani on Aug 24 2006 | comment permalink

12

Hi there, I’d be curious to know what you think of http://www.griffith.edu.au/

Although there are some tweaks to be completed (and the new look to be rolled out across the entire site) it’s shaping up pretty well. XHTML Strict, XML feed, CSS switching, print style, text size changers, etc.

Despite the challenges of a large organisation, standards and user-centred design are going strong here smile

[disclaimer: yes, I work for Griffith smile]

By Ben Buchanan (website) on Aug 25 2006 | comment permalink

13

Hi Ben,

You’ll get more frank and constructive feedback at the University Web Developers List.

By Maish Nichani on Aug 25 2006 | comment permalink

14

Yeah I had a look at LaTrobe university’s website today. Hard to gauge the effect of redesigns and renovations. The redeveloped site (not sure how long ago it was redeveloped) didn’t appear too bad. LaTrobe university had their open day today, but they didn’t state the credentials or criteria that are required for an institution to qualify as a university.

By Latrobe unofficial paleontological department (website) on Aug 27 2006 | comment permalink

15

Interesting artice. Certainly got me thinking - appreciate the hard work and perseverance that goes behind understanding what users (students, alumni etc) are looking for and proving them with a “few clicks”.

By Harish Chakravarthy (website) on Aug 28 2006 | comment permalink

16

Great article. It certanly draws a very accurate depiction of university websites. Going through the redesign at Northland College we saw much of those issues. Fighting for universal branding was hard, when it meant reding hundreds of pages done by the faculty.

Web standards proved difficult too, mostly because of the CMS solutions available for sites of that size on a limited budget. Thanks for the article!

By Dan Bowling (website) on Aug 29 2006 | comment permalink

17

I recently finished an redesign at The University of Baltimore (UB), successfully implementing a much stronger adherence to standards based coding approaches. UB has been offering RSS of campus news and events for about a year, and also use RSS to feed digital signage around campus. I’d love to know what people think of the results.

By Kevin Hoffman (website) on Aug 31 2006 | comment permalink

18

Nice article.  Not sure if you noticed, but you got a nod from CMSWatch late last week:
http://www.cmswatch.com/

By Larry Hall on Sep 05 2006 | comment permalink

19

Wow! Thanks Larry.

For other readers, here’s the CMSWatch article,
Content Management heads to college

By Maish Nichani (website) on Sep 05 2006 | comment permalink

21

Hi Dan,

Thanks for pointing it out. I’ve fixed the link.

By Maish Nichani (website) on Oct 13 2006 | comment permalink