Choosing/Comparing CMS’s

[2008-03-11 13:02:12] <Quicksilver[RT]> For everyone’s information, today’s round table will be logged and posted to the round table blog at http://uwebdroundtable.wordpress.com/ for future reference and the benefit of those that cannot make it, but would like to see what was discussed. Please keep that in mind if commenting in a fashion that you might not want to come back to you later. Please inform me after the session if there is a particular comment you would like me to edit from the logs before publishing it.
[2008-03-11 13:02:25] <Quicksilver[RT]> Before we begin, I would like everyone to take a moment and modify your nickname if you are planning on taking part in the round table.
[2008-03-11 13:02:38] –>| mib_asu8f37o (i=4812ac4d@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-71ab07d2d2e4a3ed) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:02:49] <Quicksilver[RT]> Please add [RT] to the end of your nickname, denoting your presence at the round table
[2008-03-11 13:02:52] –>| Megan (n=mjmcderm@sherlock.uwaterloo.ca) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:03:03] =-= sjhorn is now known as sjhorn[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:03:05] <Quicksilver[RT]> If you aren’t familiar with how to change your nickname in the channel, try typing the command “/nick YourNickname[RT]” in the input box without the quote marks, and applying the w or wo as appropriate between the brackets.
[2008-03-11 13:03:10] |<– megan_ has left irc.freenode.net (Client Quit)
[2008-03-11 13:03:15] =-= xyzzy123 is now known as xyzzy123[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:03:16] =-= bsteere is now known as BSteere[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:03:19] =-= mthornhill is now known as mthornhill_MHC_[
[2008-03-11 13:03:25] <nombrecinq> why are we doing RT?
[2008-03-11 13:03:28] <Quicksilver[RT]> Oops, ignore the w/wo part on that
[2008-03-11 13:03:28] =-= BSteere[RT] is now known as bsteere[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:03:30] <nombrecinq> we’re all here yo
[2008-03-11 13:03:34] <bsteere[RT]> Round Table
[2008-03-11 13:03:39] =-= unhookt is now known as unhookt[rt]
[2008-03-11 13:03:43] =-= nullfame is now known as AMF[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:03:54] <nourisha> done
[2008-03-11 13:03:55] <Quicksilver[RT]> It will separate the participants from the lurkers
[2008-03-11 13:03:56] =-= mthornhill_MHC_[ is now known as mthornhill[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:04:15] –>| combi001 (n=chatzill@x-128-101-238-231.umphysicians.umn.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:04:17] <Quicksilver[RT]> We will be trying to follow an agenda today to keep discussion somewhat organized and focused. You may read the agenda at http://uwebdroundtable.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/agenda-for-080311-choosingcomparing-cmss/
[2008-03-11 13:04:19] =-= AMF[RT] is now known as nullfame[lurker]
[2008-03-11 13:04:27] <Bryan-UMSON> I don’t know if I have anything to add to the discussion… so i’m lurking
[2008-03-11 13:04:35] <Quicksilver[RT]> (fair enough)
[2008-03-11 13:04:56] <Quicksilver[RT]> I want to take a second to thank everyone for coming in. It’s not too late that if you have colleagues that could benefit or contribute to the discussion, invite them in!
[2008-03-11 13:05:14] <nourisha> “/nick nourisha[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:05:22] =-= nullfame[lurker] is now known as AMF[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:05:25] <Quicksilver[RT]> So far, our discussions are proving very active, and each time we appear to be drawing in a few more people. So go us!
[2008-03-11 13:05:29] =-= nourisha is now known as nourisha[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:05:51] <Quicksilver[RT]> Let’s just get started with a quick roll call: who you are, what your position is, and what school you’re with.
[2008-03-11 13:05:52] <nombrecinq> i’ msort of here sort of not
[2008-03-11 13:05:53] <Quicksilver[RT]> Michael Fienen – Webmaster – Pittsburg State University
[2008-03-11 13:05:59] –>| me (n=Jon@x172y172.angelo.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:06:00] <nombrecinq> trying to get some things done
[2008-03-11 13:06:06] <Quicksilver[RT]> (no worries)
[2008-03-11 13:06:20] <bsteere[RT]> Brian Steere – Web Developer – Cornell College
[2008-03-11 13:06:23] <xyzzy123[RT]> Bill Dennen – Web Technologist – Wheaton College (MA)
[2008-03-11 13:06:24] <mthornhill[RT]> Mike Thornhill – Director of Communications – Mars Hill College
[2008-03-11 13:06:32] <nombrecinq> Scott Hildebrand – Problem Solver (web developer, programmer, slave) – University of California, Davis
[2008-03-11 13:06:34] <Megan> Megan McDermott – Manager, Web Communications – University of Waterloo
[2008-03-11 13:06:40] <AMF[RT]> Adam Finlayson – Web Developer – Northwestern University (College of Arts and Sciences)
[2008-03-11 13:06:49] <unhookt[rt]> Elliot Lopez, Analyst/Web CMS Project Manager, UC Davis (http://cms.ucdavis.edu)
[2008-03-11 13:06:59] <combi001> Andy Combites – E-Communications Manager for the Academic Health Center at the University of Minnesota
[2008-03-11 13:07:15] <Bryan-UMSON> Bryan Hantman – Webmaster – University of Maryland (School of Nursing)
[2008-03-11 13:07:36] <saltybeagle> Brett Bieber – Web Dev – University of Nebraska-Lincoln
[2008-03-11 13:07:46] <nourisha[RT]> nourisha, web editor kcumb
[2008-03-11 13:08:05] <Quicksilver[RT]> Is there anything anyone would like to toss out before we start in? Clarifications, etc?
[2008-03-11 13:08:08] –>| annamsler (n=chatzill@okapi.us.udel.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:08:32] <Quicksilver[RT]> No?
[2008-03-11 13:08:39] <Quicksilver[RT]> Super.
[2008-03-11 13:09:17] <Quicksilver[RT]> The first thing that I would like to ask, is that if any of you have gone through a selection process, and have documented that in a blog or elsewhere, if at some point you could share that URI with everyone, I know it would be appreciated.
[2008-03-11 13:09:41] <Quicksilver[RT]> We have a CMS, however have not documented our process at this time.
[2008-03-11 13:09:59] <combi001> The U of M is implementing Stellent (Now Oracle). Here is our Wiki: https://wiki-dev.software.umn.edu/view/StellentWCM/WebHome
[2008-03-11 13:10:18] <nombrecinq> oh
[2008-03-11 13:10:19] <Quicksilver[RT]> Great, thanks combi001
[2008-03-11 13:10:23] <nombrecinq> CMSes are boring ass
[2008-03-11 13:10:30] <nombrecinq> i think i’ll sit most of this one out
[2008-03-11 13:10:30] <combi001> Sorry. U of M for me is Minnesota.
[2008-03-11 13:10:40] <unhookt[rt]> UC Davis Web CMS Initiative – http://cms.ucdavis.edu
[2008-03-11 13:10:49] <nombrecinq> unhookt[rt] reprezent ucd yo
[2008-03-11 13:11:21] <Quicksilver[RT]> The first part of today’s discussion will revolve around choosing a CMS.
[2008-03-11 13:11:37] <Quicksilver[RT]> Do we have many of you that are currently or planning on moving to a CMS?
[2008-03-11 13:11:45] <Quicksilver[RT]> Or are investigating if you should?
[2008-03-11 13:11:52] <unhookt[rt]> Yes.
[2008-03-11 13:12:10] <Bryan-UMSON> We are — and we’re a Window’s shop — looking (ugh) for a .Net compliant CMS
[2008-03-11 13:12:17] <Megan> We’re just starting to investigate whether we should.
[2008-03-11 13:12:24] <annamsler> The University of Delaware is in the middle of its decision.
[2008-03-11 13:12:39] <bsteere[RT]> We’ve decided and are currently migrating
[2008-03-11 13:12:48] <mthornhill[RT]> We’re using Moodle for academics, Plone for intranet; I don’t know anything about the Moodle end of it, but we’re investigating possible replacement for the Plone
[2008-03-11 13:12:52] <nourisha[RT]> we are investigating at KCUMB
[2008-03-11 13:12:55] <AMF[RT]> Maybe? The University has one but our College’s consensus is that the implementation is not compelte enough yet
[2008-03-11 13:13:14] <combi001> The U of M has a very old and outdated install of FileNET that needed to be replaced. And it wasn’t universally used – colleges and departments could use whatever they want. But the new Stellent system will be the standard for the U.
[2008-03-11 13:13:24] <Quicksilver[RT]> Okay, good, so plenty of people researching then.
[2008-03-11 13:13:26] <nourisha[RT]> it is part of a larger site redesign
[2008-03-11 13:13:31] <unhookt[rt]> UC Davis is in the process of adopting a campus-wide Web CMS. We are currently at the start of the implementation phase.
[2008-03-11 13:13:57] =-= Ceas_Webhamster is now known as lurker
[2008-03-11 13:13:58] <Quicksilver[RT]> Has anyone felt the need for outside guidance in making your selection? Hiring a consultant?
[2008-03-11 13:13:59] –>| mherzber (n=chatzill@dhcp-admin-111.tees.tamus.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:14:09] <Quicksilver[RT]> Or are you going it alone?
[2008-03-11 13:14:40] <combi001> I should also add that the U of M is involved with Drupal. We just conducted the formal usability testing for the Drupal organization last month.
[2008-03-11 13:14:50] <Quicksilver[RT]> I noted on the agenda for those looking to do research on their own to check out http://www.cmsmatrix.org
[2008-03-11 13:15:12] <Bryan-UMSON> we have no money for that. it’s hard enough finding money to help with a redesign, with respect to the discovery process
[2008-03-11 13:15:14] <Quicksilver[RT]> As a tool evaluate apples to apples on different systems.
[2008-03-11 13:15:30] <Quicksilver[RT]> Bryan-UMSON: Very true
[2008-03-11 13:15:44] <unhookt[rt]> We are employing an internal process that includes a core project team that manages the project on the strategic level, a steering committee that provides oversight, guidance and endorsement, and several activity committees that include technologists and content managers from all over campus.
[2008-03-11 13:15:59] <Quicksilver[RT]> So it’s probably fair to say that even if you wanted to, most of you are limited to doing your own footwork I think.
[2008-03-11 13:16:16] <combi001> The U of M did it alone. The requirements and definition phase went well with internal resources. But implementing it on our own has been a pain in the ass.
[2008-03-11 13:16:34] <bsteere[RT]> Cornell College also did it alone
[2008-03-11 13:16:36] =-= Quicksilver[RT] has changed the topic to “RoundTable in PROGRESS. [RT] after your nickname denotes that you are in the discussion.”
[2008-03-11 13:16:54] =-= Megan is now known as Megan[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:17:02] <bsteere[RT]> And the implementation on our own has indeed been a royal pain
[2008-03-11 13:17:07] <unhookt[rt]> Our activity committees thus far have been focused on 1) Requirements definition and candidate evaluation/selection, and 2) Implementation
[2008-03-11 13:17:12] <annamsler> Delaware is doing it alone.
[2008-03-11 13:17:21] =-= Bryan-UMSON is now known as Bryan[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:17:30] <Quicksilver[RT]> So as you sit down in committees, or whatnot, what features are being identified as top priority?
[2008-03-11 13:17:40] <Quicksilver[RT]> Workflow? Editing? Hosting?
[2008-03-11 13:17:46] <Quicksilver[RT]> Support?
[2008-03-11 13:17:52] <Quicksilver[RT]> Cost?
[2008-03-11 13:17:54] <Bryan[RT]> Open the flood gates.
[2008-03-11 13:17:56] <combi001> Yeah, we cheaped out and didn’t hire the implementation consultants from the vendor. And we monkeyed with things under the hood so much to make the tool conform to our processes that it is hard to get good support now.
[2008-03-11 13:17:57] <Quicksilver[RT]> Hehe
[2008-03-11 13:18:10] <bsteere[RT]> Versioning, Editing, Cost, Browser Based
[2008-03-11 13:18:22] <Quicksilver[RT]> We really were looking to improve workflow and standardize templates
[2008-03-11 13:18:22] <bsteere[RT]> In no particular order
[2008-03-11 13:18:33] <bsteere[RT]> And the templates…that was really the big one
[2008-03-11 13:18:52] <AMF[RT]> IMO it should be the editor as number one if not the whole thing, but all the ohter things that will be mentioned here were part of it
[2008-03-11 13:18:55] –>| VTbruce (n=VTbruce@soccer.unirel.vt.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:18:56] <Quicksilver[RT]> We were also having a lot of permissions problems in our current server environment
[2008-03-11 13:19:07] <combi001> Here is the U of M Requirements checklist: https://wiki-dev.software.umn.edu/view/StellentWCM/RFPRequirements
[2008-03-11 13:19:08] <unhookt[rt]> We developed use cases to help identify functionality. Otherwise, what you end up with is just a list of potential capabilities. Use cases make it possible to tie actual requirements to the users of the system.
[2008-03-11 13:19:25] <Quicksilver[RT]> We couldn’t give people access to things they needed to edit. There are even parts of the site I couldn’t edit.
[2008-03-11 13:19:31] <combi001> Agreed. Use cases are a good way to go.
[2008-03-11 13:19:47] <Quicksilver[RT]> Good call.
[2008-03-11 13:19:57] <AMF[RT]> agree with use cases. give them to vendor to perform during demo
[2008-03-11 13:20:02] <Quicksilver[RT]> How much time did you give to use cases?
[2008-03-11 13:20:52] <AMF[RT]> hard to say re: time. weeks in “committee time”
[2008-03-11 13:20:58] <unhookt[rt]> In the use-case development methodology, you start by defining who your users are.
[2008-03-11 13:21:02] <AMF[RT]> in human time a few hours
[2008-03-11 13:21:28] <combi001> At the time, I worked at the Carlson School of Management here at the U of M – Use cases were written during the requirements gathering and RFP writing process. That whole process took about 4 months. I’d say I spent a couple of days writing my use cases.
[2008-03-11 13:21:58] <Quicksilver[RT]> This ties in with the next part, which is creating a selection plan or process.
[2008-03-11 13:22:09] <Quicksilver[RT]> Which is a pretty vague description, I know.
[2008-03-11 13:22:16] <Quicksilver[RT]> We went straight to RFY
[2008-03-11 13:22:19] <Quicksilver[RT]> RFP rather.
[2008-03-11 13:22:26] <unhookt[rt]> Then we moved to identification of the types of interactions that the users will/would/should be able to have within, with and through the system. This led to the next step – identification of actual functional and technical requirements that we could use to compare candidate solutions.
[2008-03-11 13:22:58] <combi001> We had identified over 300 features we would like to have. We narrowed that down to about 20 or so for the RFP. RFP went out to vendors and I think we seriously evaluated about 6 or 7 options.
[2008-03-11 13:23:19] <unhookt[rt]> Our Requirements and Evaluation committee (12 people) hashed out users, use cases and requirements in 5-6 weekly meetings of 1.5 hours each.
[2008-03-11 13:23:38] <Quicksilver[RT]> And was the same committee responsible for the ultimate selection?
[2008-03-11 13:24:20] <unhookt[rt]> Our Requirements and Evaluation committee then identified the functional and technical requirements that were absolutely vital – “Must Haves”
[2008-03-11 13:24:52] <combi001> The entire U of M committee was huge. We broke it into smaller working groups. One group worked on use cases, one worked on the RFP, one worked on vendor evaluations (we all participated in that, but one small group led the effort). We also identified a core group that would be the pilot projects.
[2008-03-11 13:25:21] <unhookt[rt]> This became our prequalification list. Any system that would be subjected to further comparison had to include all of the capabilities on that list. The rest of the technical and functional requirements were prioritized on a scale of 1-3. That was the fun part!
[2008-03-11 13:25:23] <Bryan[RT]> Can we back up for a moment to use cases? How many uses cases did you come up with before writing the RFP at U of M (or elsewhere)?
[2008-03-11 13:25:30] |<– sjhorn[RT] has left irc.freenode.net (“ChatZilla 0.9.81 [Firefox 2.0.0.12/2008020121]“)
[2008-03-11 13:26:32] <Quicksilver[RT]> Possible Use Case Writing Resource: http://alistair.cockburn.us/index.php/Resources_for_writing_use_cases
[2008-03-11 13:26:38] <unhookt[rt]> I don’t have a count, but the individual use cases were not used for writing the RFP – they were used for identifying technical and functional requirements
[2008-03-11 13:26:52] <Quicksilver[RT]> (for reference later, was just a quick Google result)
[2008-03-11 13:26:56] <unhookt[rt]> That’s a good resource. Here’s another: http://www.processimpact.com/articles/usecase.html
[2008-03-11 13:27:05] <AMF[RT]> we did user case after rfp before demo (maybe a bad idea) but had ~20 “scenerios” with maybe hafl as many actors (“personae”)
[2008-03-11 13:27:12] <combi001> I can’t remember the exact number – but we had three classifications. OIT/backend admins, developers, and content editors/contributors
[2008-03-11 13:27:51] <unhookt[rt]> So it’s an iterative process: 1) Define users 2) Define use cases to determine functional and technical requirements 3) Use requirements to filter/evaluate candidate solutions
[2008-03-11 13:28:17] <Quicksilver[RT]> Essentially outlining common tasks users go through, and detailing the steps, correct?
[2008-03-11 13:28:22] <Bryan[RT]> thanks
[2008-03-11 13:28:27] <unhookt[rt]> Yes
[2008-03-11 13:28:31] <combi001> Yes, it was definitely an iterative process for us.
[2008-03-11 13:28:57] <Quicksilver[RT]> So, as you are looking at CMS’s, or looked at them previously, are you giving equal weight to open source and commercial systems?
[2008-03-11 13:29:09] <Quicksilver[RT]> I know I heard some Drupal and Plone being brought up earlier.
[2008-03-11 13:29:22] <bsteere[RT]> We weren’t allowed to look at open source
[2008-03-11 13:29:22] <Quicksilver[RT]> We use dotCMS, which is enterprise grade open source.
[2008-03-11 13:29:27] <AMF[RT]> we gave equal weight to OS but had consultants bid on behalf of the systems
[2008-03-11 13:29:43] <unhookt[rt]> By doing it this way, you flush out the nuances of your specific environment, user preferences, contextual criteria, etc. that influence both the types and relative value/importance of the different functional and technical requirements you come up with
[2008-03-11 13:29:51] <Quicksilver[RT]> bsteere: Reason being?
[2008-03-11 13:30:06] <bsteere[RT]> Our director at the time was of the mindset that you get what you pay for
[2008-03-11 13:30:12] <saltybeagle> ‘enterprise grade open source
[2008-03-11 13:30:14] <combi001> When we started the process in January 2006, there were only a few of us who were really pushing Open Source options. But I think the powers that be were a little spooked by that concept. They were more comfrtable dealing with commercail vendors.
[2008-03-11 13:30:48] <mthornhill[RT]> Our ITS is pretty open (pun somewhat intended) to open source.
[2008-03-11 13:30:49] <nourisha[RT]> we don’t have the resources to handle an open source implementation
[2008-03-11 13:30:50] <bsteere[RT]> If we were able to do it again now, I think we would look at both equally…possibly with a preference towards open source
[2008-03-11 13:30:51] <mthornhill[RT]> Especially budget-wise.
[2008-03-11 13:30:52] <unhookt[rt]> We started with a list of 150 open source and commercial solutions, and we used our prequalification list (mentioned earlier) to filter that down to a workable number.
[2008-03-11 13:31:19] <Quicksilver[RT]> Do you think the differences in support and community development make the two pretty even?
[2008-03-11 13:31:26] =-= saltybeagle is now known as saltybeagle[RT]
[2008-03-11 13:31:29] <unhookt[rt]> We didn’t approach the selection with preconceived notions about cost, etc. Most are based on fallacious assumptions, anyway.
[2008-03-11 13:31:40] <saltybeagle[RT]> sorry… ‘enterprise grade open source’ ? What is this…? Sounds arbitrary.
[2008-03-11 13:31:41] <combi001> Well, the resource requirements to handle a commercial install have been a challenge for us
[2008-03-11 13:31:45] <Quicksilver[RT]> Commercial software might have better immediate support, but open source allows a larger pool of knowledge to draw from?
[2008-03-11 13:32:02] <nourisha[RT]> but we don’t have a large budget to work with either so it’s a catch 22
[2008-03-11 13:32:14] <bsteere[RT]> Our preference would currently be an open source product with commercial support
[2008-03-11 13:32:24] <AMF[RT]> of course closed source vendors dont want to spend money supporting you so dont expect tons of help there
[2008-03-11 13:32:31] <Quicksilver[RT]> saltybeagle: Our CMS is an enterprise level CMS developed by dotMarketing for education. Rather than charge, they opened the code, and based it off of projects like Liferay and Apache
[2008-03-11 13:32:35] <unhookt[rt]> We found budget to pretty much be a non-issue. When we compared our open source and commercial finalists, we found them to be comparable in cost.
[2008-03-11 13:32:55] <Quicksilver[RT]> But we can pay for top level support
[2008-03-11 13:33:05] <Bryan[RT]> WHat kinds of costs are you talking about?
[2008-03-11 13:33:30] <Quicksilver[RT]> Got transition to next point Bryan
[2008-03-11 13:33:39] <Quicksilver[RT]> What should people plan on budgeting for?
[2008-03-11 13:33:55] <unhookt[rt]> We anticipated that some level of outside integration services would be required to get us up and running, regardless of whether it was an open source or commercial solution.
[2008-03-11 13:34:03] <bsteere[RT]> Servers, Implementation Time, Migration Time
[2008-03-11 13:34:07] <nourisha[RT]> initial and continued support
[2008-03-11 13:34:17] <Quicksilver[RT]> For us, we are having them do the templates and design. We also pay for annual support. User conference.
[2008-03-11 13:34:17] <unhookt[rt]> The expertise required to deploy on a campus-wide level won’t just materialize here.
[2008-03-11 13:34:19] <bsteere[RT]> Licensing (if necessary)
[2008-03-11 13:34:30] <unhookt[rt]> Annual support, hardware, etc.
[2008-03-11 13:34:39] <Quicksilver[RT]> We deployed in a VMWare server, so no added hardware costs on this end luckily
[2008-03-11 13:34:45] <combi001> Well, the U of M has spent over a million dollars so far. We installed in December of 2006 and our first site went live last month – 14 months after install.
[2008-03-11 13:34:46] <AMF[RT]> training… not just the initial launch but good to have some money saved for once you have a basic undertstanding to go to an advanced class
[2008-03-11 13:34:47] <unhookt[rt]> Time and human resources – initial and ongoing
[2008-03-11 13:35:02] <Quicksilver[RT]> Most places will need some level of custom integration with other apps.
[2008-03-11 13:35:06] <AMF[RT]> lol combi that sounds familiar
[2008-03-11 13:35:09] <bsteere[RT]> We tried a virtual server…didn’t have vmware at the time and Microsoft Virtual Server wasn’t really up to it
[2008-03-11 13:35:31] <Quicksilver[RT]> We’re having good luck with it so far.
[2008-03-11 13:35:39] <Quicksilver[RT]> That said, we aren’t live yet.
[2008-03-11 13:35:54] <bsteere[RT]> We’re getting ready to roll out a VMWare setup…Highly Available and everything
[2008-03-11 13:35:57] <Quicksilver[RT]> Though we are hosting a newsletter from the system, to start testing things.
[2008-03-11 13:36:12] <Bryan[RT]> URI to the newsletter?
[2008-03-11 13:36:28] <Quicksilver[RT]> (newsletter functionality in dotCMS for reference: http://www.pittstate.edu/geeks/newsletter.html)
[2008-03-11 13:36:52] <Quicksilver[RT]> (blog detailing creation: http://www.supersatellite.com/2008/03/11/using-dotcms-a-practical-example/)
[2008-03-11 13:36:56] <combi001> The problem for us was we rushed the process right after purchase. We front-loaded all of our alloted consultant/suuport hours and wasted them up. It took us forever to get a base install and we didn’t even know what to ask the consultants. We needed to follow a more linear process instead of parallel processes.
[2008-03-11 13:37:09] –>| bcrisler (n=bcrisler@ucommcrisler.unl.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:37:21] –>| rlim (n=rlim@perak.unl.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:37:25] <xyzzy123[RT]> which version of dotcms is this? (ie. which edition?)
[2008-03-11 13:37:30] <Quicksilver[RT]> Is anyone doing or looking at a hosted solution like OmniUpdate?
[2008-03-11 13:37:34] <Quicksilver[RT]> (1.5.1)
[2008-03-11 13:38:30] <AMF[RT]> we looked at omniupdate but i dont think our central it would have dug the idea of a hosted solution authenticating against our ldap (a requirement, though not presently implemeneted in any evet)
[2008-03-11 13:38:40] <unhookt[rt]> We evaluated hosted as well. Ongoing costs are substantial – depends on whether you have a small, stable pool of potential users or the possibility of seeing great numbers of additional users as the popularity of your solution grows.
[2008-03-11 13:38:48] <combi001> I should add that in the past 14 months, most of us have been trying to MIGRATE our old sites over via migration scripts. That has taken MUCH longer than anticipated.
[2008-03-11 13:38:51] –>| Shrop (n=mdshrops@shrop-mac.uncc.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:39:00] <Quicksilver[RT]> Understandable.
[2008-03-11 13:39:22] <nourisha[RT]> we have three people on staff so everything is going to take us forever
[2008-03-11 13:39:28] <Quicksilver[RT]> I liked OmniUpdate, but didn’t like the idea of not having control.
[2008-03-11 13:39:39] <bsteere[RT]> Migration time has been either: a) manual copying/pasting of old content to cms or b) creation of new content
[2008-03-11 13:39:44] <Quicksilver[RT]> I know dotCMS is planning a hosted solution in the future too.
[2008-03-11 13:39:49] <bsteere[RT]> Which is a long, ongoing process
[2008-03-11 13:39:54] <Quicksilver[RT]> bsteere: ditto here.
[2008-03-11 13:40:04] <AMF[RT]> copy/paste: same
[2008-03-11 13:40:05] <combi001> Here’s a question – not sure how it relates – but what about governance processes? How has that impacted you? We have none, so we also had to consider that no matter what tool/workflow we went with, there were a lot of process things we had to address OUTSIDE of the technology solution.
[2008-03-11 13:40:11] <Quicksilver[RT]> We’re going to create a lot of new content, then see what leftovers need to be brought in.
[2008-03-11 13:40:36] <Quicksilver[RT]> combi001: We’re dealing with some of that.
[2008-03-11 13:40:46] <AMF[RT]> we used to have a committee (mostly peeps from selection) that oversaw governance of the system
[2008-03-11 13:40:47] <Quicksilver[RT]> Marketing was appointed owner of the web site here.
[2008-03-11 13:40:56] <Quicksilver[RT]> And I was moved under them.
[2008-03-11 13:41:24] <combi001> Yeah, OIT owns it here. Our University Relations is involved, but OIT dictates a lot of the decisions.
[2008-03-11 13:41:33] <Quicksilver[RT]> A bit of both. The top layer of the site will be 100% marketing
[2008-03-11 13:41:47] <bsteere[RT]> No real governance in place here. People can do pretty much whatever they can figure out how to do within the folders they have access to.
[2008-03-11 13:41:56] <Quicksilver[RT]> Below a certain level, departments and offices will have control, within style guidelines
[2008-03-11 13:41:58] <bsteere[RT]> Technically Communications is in charge of the whole thing.
[2008-03-11 13:42:06] <Quicksilver[RT]> We still have to develop a style guide though.
[2008-03-11 13:42:24] <combi001> Funny. When I was at the Carlson School, web/interactive was part of marketing and communications. But a new Dean said, “The web is not a strategic marketing tool. It is an IT function.” YIKES! And this is the Dean of the business school. So we were moved to IT.
[2008-03-11 13:42:42] <Quicksilver[RT]> Heh, we moved out of IT.
[2008-03-11 13:42:49] <Quicksilver[RT]> Which has worked to our benefit
[2008-03-11 13:43:06] <Bryan[RT]> I’m in Comm, and we’re driving this…
[2008-03-11 13:43:12] <Quicksilver[RT]> Though my ultimate goal is a web communications office.
[2008-03-11 13:43:24] <Quicksilver[RT]> Anyway, we have about 15 minutes left.
[2008-03-11 13:43:31] <combi001> Yes, the governance model we are moving towards is like a bunch of pyramids within pyramids. Marketing will own the “tips” and departments will own the details underneath.
[2008-03-11 13:43:39] <Quicksilver[RT]> The second part of the roundtable was for comparing CMS (features)
[2008-03-11 13:43:50] <bsteere[RT]> IT is in charge of getting users into the system and keeping it working. Also, updating the templates. OCC (Office of College Communications) is theoretically in charge of who goes in and when.
[2008-03-11 13:43:54] <Quicksilver[RT]> But, I think the best way to approach that is to just open things up.
[2008-03-11 13:44:22] <Quicksilver[RT]> Have a free-for-all for people to ask questions to those of us with systems
[2008-03-11 13:44:35] <Quicksilver[RT]> Or who evaluated a lot of them.
[2008-03-11 13:44:48] <AMF[RT]> im curious if anyone is satisfied with their “web editor” (wysiwyg) tool
[2008-03-11 13:44:55] <jdw5> ok I’ll go first: how did you avoid the “try to please everyone and end up pleasing noone” problem?
[2008-03-11 13:44:58] <AMF[RT]> esp compared to contribute or even dw… is it any good?
[2008-03-11 13:44:59] <jdw5> AMF: we are
[2008-03-11 13:45:00] <bsteere[RT]> Not especially
[2008-03-11 13:45:08] <Quicksilver[RT]> jdw5: We picked dotCMS
[2008-03-11 13:45:12] <bsteere[RT]> Cascade uses TinyMCE but doesn’t let us control it
[2008-03-11 13:45:24] <Bryan[RT]> What CMS did you choose not to go w/, and why?
[2008-03-11 13:45:35] <Quicksilver[RT]> I like dotCMS’s approach to content, which is sort of a hybrid WYSIWYG
[2008-03-11 13:45:35] <bsteere[RT]> jdw5: we didn’t…we aren’t even particularly pleased
[2008-03-11 13:45:40] <jdw5> AMF: but that’s because we stuck with Contribute and integrated it into our existing software version control system – kind of a hybrid
[2008-03-11 13:45:44] <AMF[RT]> i find ours takes 25 clicks to get there and isnt very robust once you can begin to edit
[2008-03-11 13:45:58] <VTbruce> You can please everyone — as my boss says, “There is no perfect CMS.” You have to pick the best features and accept that it won’t do everything.
[2008-03-11 13:46:01] <AMF[RT]> jdw5: what system?
[2008-03-11 13:46:16] <bsteere[RT]> Bryan: We use Hannon Hill’s Cascade Server. It was chosen as it looked like the best of our options.
[2008-03-11 13:46:17] <jdw5> AMF[RT]: Perforce
[2008-03-11 13:46:47] <VTbruce> Virginia Tech is using Rhythmyx from Percussion.
[2008-03-11 13:46:50] <bsteere[RT]> Also, one of few we could afford
[2008-03-11 13:47:06] <Quicksilver[RT]> dotCMS demo: http://dotcms.org/products/dotcms/demo.dot
[2008-03-11 13:47:16] <xyzzy123[RT]> noone using reddot?
[2008-03-11 13:47:20] <Quicksilver[RT]> Free was a big selling point.
[2008-03-11 13:47:24] <Quicksilver[RT]> We looked at Red Dot
[2008-03-11 13:47:26] <Quicksilver[RT]> Too expensive
[2008-03-11 13:47:31] <nourisha[RT]> gotta go to a meeting. i’ll check out the transcript though. thanks for all the links guys! toodles
[2008-03-11 13:47:38] <Quicksilver[RT]> Thanks for coming!
[2008-03-11 13:47:40] <bsteere[RT]> Likewise (with the too expensive)
[2008-03-11 13:47:46] <combi001> I think the big problem for us is that an enterprise-level CMS is a pipe dream. We are just too diverse on campus. The medical school has different needs than the school of music. For example, if I take 20 people to Baskin Robbins for Ice Cream and tell them they all have to agree on the same flavor, you will probably walk out of there with vanilla or chocolate. The only flavor that everyone…
[2008-03-11 13:47:48] <combi001> …can agree on by that nobody really wanted.
[2008-03-11 13:48:07] <saltybeagle[RT]> combi001: agree with you.
[2008-03-11 13:48:09] * bsteere[RT] likes vanilla
[2008-03-11 13:48:11] <VTbruce> VT looked at Red Dot, but it wasn’t accessible — and the review committee had someone who saw that as a major issue in any solution.
[2008-03-11 13:48:26] <jdw5> combi001: that’s a great description of the problem most of us (those who aren’t at really small schools) face
[2008-03-11 13:48:28] <AMF[RT]> agree with combi. i think the key is to find *very few* *absolutly key* features and evaluate on those
[2008-03-11 13:48:33] <unhookt[rt]> We recently conducted a survey and published results: What Web CMS’s Are Campuses Using? http://pubcomm-29.ucdavis.edu/?p=35
[2008-03-11 13:48:40] <jdw5> combi001: the “business needs” of each unit vary too much
[2008-03-11 13:48:43] <bsteere[RT]> Even small schools have the same problem
[2008-03-11 13:48:55] <Quicksilver[RT]> Is everyone using LDAP?
[2008-03-11 13:48:59] <bsteere[RT]> Yep
[2008-03-11 13:49:02] <Quicksilver[RT]> We lucked into it.
[2008-03-11 13:49:03] <AMF[RT]> eg, nobody uses workflow two years later but it was super important in evaluation
[2008-03-11 13:49:10] <AMF[RT]> ldap yes
[2008-03-11 13:49:18] <jdw5> combi001: which is why I’m skeptical that VTbruce’s assertion that you can please everyone is questionable
[2008-03-11 13:49:26] <bsteere[RT]> (Well…AD, but close enough)
[2008-03-11 13:49:32] <jdw5> combi001: er, you know what I mean
[2008-03-11 13:49:52] <jdw5> Kerberos
[2008-03-11 13:50:12] <combi001> I think the key to success is to let schools/colleges on campus pick their own systems, but they should all write to a same backend. For example, standardize on Oracle or SQL – then at least it is easier to get them to work with each other.
[2008-03-11 13:50:50] <Quicksilver[RT]> Who is on Open Source vs. Commercial?
[2008-03-11 13:50:53] <xyzzy123[RT]> er; dotCMS for .org
[2008-03-11 13:50:54] <jdw5> combi001: information interoperability doesn’t work like that
[2008-03-11 13:51:03] <xyzzy123[RT]> (cut/paste issue!)
[2008-03-11 13:51:12] <combi001> Agreed on workflow. Every place I have ever worked talks about it but nobody uses it. They all end up forgetting the author and editor roles. Everyone is an approver.
[2008-03-11 13:51:23] <saltybeagle[RT]> Here at UNL – marketing/communications defines the presentation, individual depts can take that and stick it on any CMS that can make it happen.
[2008-03-11 13:51:40] <Quicksilver[RT]> xyzzy123: What’s that you’re asking?
[2008-03-11 13:51:45] <jdw5> combi001: we use workflow here
[2008-03-11 13:51:52] <jdw5> combi001: have been for almost a year now
[2008-03-11 13:51:56] <jdw5> very successful
[2008-03-11 13:52:04] <xyzzy123[RT]> I see there is a “dotCMS for .edu”: is that what you’re using?
[2008-03-11 13:52:16] <jdw5> but then again that was one of the “mission critical” components we built as part of the glue
[2008-03-11 13:52:29] <jdw5> so it matches the business process and not the other way around
[2008-03-11 13:52:30] <Quicksilver[RT]> No actually. Chris at U of Edinboro is though.
[2008-03-11 13:52:40] <combi001> How do you enforce or make it successful – it doesn’t work here because we’ve never had it. People claim “academic freedom” and that they can do whatever they want, however they want.
[2008-03-11 13:52:49] <Quicksilver[RT]> The .edu version just comes with some prebuilt structures and stuff that the normal one doesn’t
[2008-03-11 13:52:56] <xyzzy123[RT]> ah
[2008-03-11 13:53:14] |<– xyzzy123[RT] has left irc.freenode.net ()
[2008-03-11 13:53:15] <jdw5> combi001: very good question. By fiat. The dean says everything goes through the Communciations department for approval
[2008-03-11 13:53:39] –>| saltybeagle (n=saltybea@pcp062986pcs.unl.edu) has joined #uwebd
[2008-03-11 13:54:07] <Quicksilver[RT]> combi001: We just remove the choice.
[2008-03-11 13:54:10] <Quicksilver[RT]> Heh
[2008-03-11 13:54:12] <jdw5> combi001: just about everyone can make changes, and the Communications editor makes sure the copy is “web ready”, fits the IA, etc
[2008-03-11 13:54:25] <Quicksilver[RT]> But really, where we are coming from was so bad, everyone is very enthusiastic luckily
[2008-03-11 13:54:39] <jdw5> combi001: with the exception of 1 or 2 folks everyone thought that was in the best interest of the school
[2008-03-11 13:54:46] <Quicksilver[RT]> Plus we’ve made it clear that there will be minimalist templates for those needing greater flexibility.
[2008-03-11 13:54:59] <Quicksilver[RT]> But that will all be governed by rules in the style guide.
[2008-03-11 13:55:18] <combi001> Yeah, leadership understands, but faculty do not. And they don’t like to make the faculty mad.
[2008-03-11 13:55:32] <Bryan[RT]> jdw5: when you mean the web editor makes it “web ready”…is everything edited by an editor before going live?
[2008-03-11 13:55:56] <Quicksilver[RT]> I find good interpersonal communication skills go a long way towards smooth transitions.
[2008-03-11 13:56:04] <VTbruce> CMS or no, enforcing standards has always been a problem here. At least we now offer templates and there is a lot of buy-in, but still there are holdouts
[2008-03-11 13:56:11] <combi001> Agreed that keeping templates minimal has been a wise move by our University Relations – pretty much a header and a footer and a request to use the same three column layout. But what you do in those three columns is up to you.
[2008-03-11 13:56:12] <Quicksilver[RT]> Unfortunately, you can’t buy that with CMS’s, heh
[2008-03-11 13:56:57] <jdw5> Bryan[RT]: officially, yes. they review it. in practice, though, people got the hang of writing / organizing well before submitting things (or knowing they needed to chat with “experts” before submitting things)
[2008-03-11 13:57:01] <Quicksilver[RT]> Governance also helps. Having a clear owner (one who isn’t me and doesn’t care if they’re the bad guy) who makes calls is good.
[2008-03-11 13:58:06] <Quicksilver[RT]> Also the layout of our new site helps, where the top layer is Marketing, no matter what. Below that, no big deal. At least we’ve controlled the important info.
[2008-03-11 13:58:44] <Quicksilver[RT]> Okay, as we’re running up on 2:00, I want to thank everyone for coming before people start to disappear.
[2008-03-11 13:58:58] <Quicksilver[RT]> Of course, everyone is welcome to stay and continue discussing
[2008-03-11 13:59:03] <Bryan[RT]> this has been good
[2008-03-11 13:59:09] <Quicksilver[RT]> I will run the log as far as necessary
[2008-03-11 13:59:13] <Bryan[RT]> thnx
[2008-03-11 13:59:17] <Megan[RT]> Thanks for sharing your experiences!
[2008-03-11 13:59:26] <Quicksilver[RT]> I’m also happy to take suggestions for the next roundtable poll.
[2008-03-11 13:59:33] <combi001> Yeah, I gott run. This was a good start. Feel free to email me at combi001@umn.edu if you have any questions.
[2008-03-11 13:59:39] <unhookt[rt]> We consider the Web CMS a tool that we provide our site managers and technologists – to help them comply with the standards and policies that govern official campus Web sites.
[2008-03-11 13:59:44] |<– Bryan[RT] has left irc.freenode.net (“ChatZilla 0.9.81 [Firefox 2.0.0.12/2008020121]“)
[2008-03-11 13:59:46] <AMF[RT]> so just to be sure, nobody really likes their wysiwyg editor, except jdw5 who has a fat client
[2008-03-11 14:00:01] <mthornhill[RT]> thanks, all. I haven’t had much to contribute, but got some good links and info, and I look forward to reading back through the transcript
[2008-03-11 14:00:02] |<– mherzber has left irc.freenode.net (“ChatZilla 0.9.81 [Firefox 2.0.0.12/2008020121]“)
[2008-03-11 14:00:03] <AMF[RT]> (which i like the idea of)
[2008-03-11 14:00:03] <Quicksilver[RT]> AMF[RT]: I am not unhappy with mine.
[2008-03-11 14:00:05] <combi001> We used to have FCK editor and it was good.
[2008-03-11 14:00:07] <jdw5> AMF[RT]: completely agree, which is precisely why we went fat client
[2008-03-11 14:00:11] |<– mthornhill[RT] has left irc.freenode.net (“ChatZilla 0.9.81 [Firefox 2.0.0.12/2008020121]“)
[2008-03-11 14:00:14] <Quicksilver[RT]> It’s just a bit different from the normal way of doing things.
[2008-03-11 14:00:38] |<– combi001 has left irc.freenode.net (“ChatZilla 0.9.81 [Firefox 2.0.0.12/2008020121]“)
[2008-03-11 14:01:10] <AMF[RT]> does anyone use concurrent licensing for desktop software? not necessary cms realted but kindaish
[2008-03-11 14:01:15] <AMF[RT]> key server and the like
[2008-03-11 14:01:54] <jdw5> AMF[RT]: we do, but I don’t know the details other than that
[2008-03-11 14:02:14] <AMF[RT]> right. contribute is like as easy as falling down
[2008-03-11 14:02:23] <jdw5> AMF[RT]: exactly
[2008-03-11 14:02:42] <Quicksilver[RT]> jdw5: dotCMS handles content input through a form, complete with tips and helpers. But any field can have a WYSIWIG attached to it.
[2008-03-11 14:02:44] <jdw5> AMF[RT]: but it completely sucks regarding integration with rich (read: non-static) sites
[2008-03-11 14:02:53] <bsteere[RT]> I like TinyMCE, but only if I can control it
[2008-03-11 14:02:58] <AMF[RT]> everything else ive seen has taken way more clicks to get to content (and rarely in a browse interface) and then isnt good editor once you open document
[2008-03-11 14:03:02] <Quicksilver[RT]> Creating content is like filling in a contact form.
[2008-03-11 14:03:03] <AMF[RT]> right on
[2008-03-11 14:03:10] <AMF[RT]> re: TinyMCE
[2008-03-11 14:03:22] <unhookt[rt]> Gotta run, but I’m happy to share project and process information and documentation with anyone interested: ellopez@ucdavis.edu or http://cms.ucdavis.edu
[2008-03-11 14:03:32] <unhookt[rt]> This was great