This post is wandering quite far from my normal info-related posts...
ObjectWeb, an Apache group, released the alpha of Clustered JDBC. The project provides a JDBC (Java database connector) driver for clusters of databases. What this means is that there might soon be a simple, low-cost way to provide redundancy and scalability to a variety of databases, including open source products like MySQL and PostgresSQL. Cool.
Builder.com has published an article with the slightly unwieldy title of "Consider these criteria to choose the right open source CMS solution." Despite the wordy title, its still a useful read.
Taxonomywarehouse.com is a controlled vocabulary search engine and reseller. Its a nice way to see what other vocabularies exist in a given field. The user interface on the website is a tad convoluted, but that can be improved...
John Girard has a great article on migrating legacy content into a new CMS. Well worth a read if you're grappling with these issues.
Jeffrey Veen has a humorous post on IA jargon:
Boil the Ocean v. Try to solve too many problems with an overambitious project, typically resulting in a complete failure. Many Content Management projects end up this way when attempting to port an entire organization's content, process, and workflow into one new, massive tool. "Look, just help the HR teams get their forms online. We don't need to boil the ocean with this."
CMSimple is a new PHP-based CMS. They store the content in one big HTML file, so this tool is probably best used on only very small sites. Also, the CMSimple logo is, uh, a bit too "adult." Hide your eyes, kids.
Phil Windley, former CIO of the State of Utah, has a brief post about using RSS for eGovernment.
Michael Angeles (of IASlash fame) has a nice article in Library Journal about KM and weblogs.
Web-logging software has received plenty of attention as a quick and easy way to post content to a web site. Web logs (blogs) tend to fall into two categories: personal web logs that function sort of like diaries, and informational blogs that target a readership with a shared interest. But web logging can also be used to support knowledge management (KM)—the effort within an organization to share knowledge and help the organization achieve its mission. This form of web logging, called knowledge logging, or k-logging, is emerging as an inexpensive alternative to large-scale KM solutions.
Mark Notess has an article on usability in e-learning in "eLearn Magazine:"
But much e-learning still has slow adoption and high dropout rates. Online learning leaves many students frustrated or unenthusiastic. The good news is that concepts and processes for addressing these shortfalls in learner experience can be found in the field of usability. In this paper, I outline ways in which the field of usability, properly understood, can help online learning fulfill its promise.
Much of the article was an introduction to usability concepts, with a little subject-specific info thrown in. I wish there was a more in-depth discussion of the specific usability issues in e-learning. Still, its an interesting article.
(via Column Two)
A while back James Robertson pointed to two blog entries about migrating legacy content into a CMS: Martin White and David Gammel. Quick summary: White says to plan ahead and Gammel encourages your to inventory, delete, and use temps. Good advice all around.
Here's how'd I'd approach the problem.
First, inventory and identify (and remove) ROT (Redundant, Outdated, Trivial) content. This is also a great place to get the metadata assigned.
Assuming you need the content in some sort of useful form (rather than the tag soup its currently in), you'll need to do some serious conversion. I think that much of this can be automated. A mix of a database, HTMLTidy, and python (or perl) should be enough to slam things into shape. You'll probably need to do some manual changes, but this should take care of a good deal of content.
Then, suck it up into the CMS and tweak as needed.
Check out this nice article on the fine art of writing webpage previews (blurbs).
The Register has an article on a computer security study. A group of British researchers asked office workers a variety of questions about security, including offering individuals a cheap pen in exchange or divulging their password. Ninety percent of workers cheerfully gave up their passwords. When asked about the origins of their passwords, people identified things like the word "password," their own name, and sports teams. The weak link in computer security is not Microsoft (although the regular "patch and reboot" drill is getting a tad old), but people. The solution? Systems need to be so user-friendly that people won't need to make obvious passwords. The answer probably lies in biometrics (fingerprint scans, etc). We're not there yet, but we will be soon.
Word about Josh Porter's "Testing the Three-Click Rule" has been making the rounds on web-related blogs lately. The (in)famous Three-Click Rule says that all web content should be available within three mouse clicks. I (and most web developers) have heard clients ask for designs that will follow this rule. But, is there any basis for this rule? Porter conducted some experiments to find out. The results:
If there is a scientific basis to the Three-Click Rule, we couldn't find it in our data. Our analysis left us without any correlation between the number of times users clicked and their success in finding the content they sought.
But, as Porter points out, the rule isn't all bad. It helps people--especially high-level decision makers--focus on users. And that, as Martha would say, is a "Good Thing."
DMReview.com has an article on automatic classification tools. I'm a tad skeptical of some of these tools--I tend to favor humans doing the classification rather than algorithms. But, as the article points out, humans don't scale well. Plus, as the authors argue, automatic classification tools are becoming more and more useful. Something to watch...
I like Jakob Nielsen's latest Alertbox column on paper prototyping. Nielsen's extolls the virtues of this simple usability tool:
I'm here to tell you that paper prototyping works. There are many different grades of paper prototypes, and they all offer immense value relative to the time it takes to create and test them. I have run studies with nothing more than three different homepage mock-ups for a website, and still we learned a lot about how people would use the service and how our design concepts communicated to users.
eWeek has a brief review of Plone: Plone Opens Up Web Publishing. A snippet:
However, although Plone is consistently referenced on its site and in its documentation as a content management application, don't expect to use it like a high-end Web content management system such as those from Vignette Corp. and Documentum Inc. For high-level Web site content management implementations, Bricolage is a better open-source alternative.
WebReference.com has an interview with Rosenfeld and Krug. Most of the short interview isn't all that interesting (did we need to know that Steve Krug snores?), but I liked Lou's response to the question of why he was "hopping on the UX [User Experience] bandwagon?":
I'm typically anti-wagon (I much prefer to walk). But I do happen to like this particular bandwagon. We need UX because contemporary design challenges are too complex; no single established field, such as graphic design, computer science, or technical communication, can provide the array of techniques and wisdom necessary. There are newer fields, like information architecture and usability, which are on the right track - these espouse multi- disciplinary methodologies. But they're each still a bit narrowly focused and come with baggage. UX could provide a broad design umbrella for us all to get under, compare notes and techniques, maybe even come up with a shared design methodology. If nothing else, UX could also help provide a framework that would enable interdisciplinary conversations. After all, one of the hardest parts of working in a multidisciplinary environment is that we literally don't speak the same language.
Peter-Paul Koch has a new Digital Web article about web teams (it is part 1 of 2). As a member of a small but growing web team, I read this with interest. Koch argues that a good web team should be made up of no more than seven people, split across three sub-teams: client-side specialists, server-side specialists, and supporting specialists (like project managers and system administrators). The two most important points are that teams should avoid insularity (or over-specialization to the point of ignoring other team members) and that the team members should communicate. Good advice, and it applies to pretty much any team out there.
I've been seeing more and more articles on RSS, the XML format used to syndicate web content. Presstime has an article on providing RSS feeds, and Jon Udell talks about using RSS in PR.
Scripting.com pointed to a nice list of RSS readers and aggregators. There are a lot more out there than I thought! He even lists readers for the iPod and the Newton (for all of you still using Newtons).
I showed my RSS reader of choice, NetNewsWire, to a friend from Microsoft. He was pretty impressed. Being a Microsoft kinda guy, he'll probably like NewsGator, a RSS reader that lives within Outlook.
As I showed him, I use the RSS reader to keep up on what's going on in the worlds of high tech, Mac, information management, web development, and more. It only takes me a few minutes to go through the news items (I used to spend much more time visiting only a few websites).
James Robertson has published a brief article on intranet success as a part of his occasional series of CM-focused articles.
Robertson argues that for an intranet to be successful, it must not only meet the staff's needs, but it must provide a tool that is easy for content contributors to use.
For example, the quality of the content management system and processes is irrelevant if the intranet doesn't deliver what staff require. Conversely, no amount of usability testing and information architecture activities will lead to a successful project if the authoring tool is too complex and counter-intuitive for business groups to use.
Good point. The article is well worth reading for anyone involved in intranet development.
Mozilla, the open-source browser that's at the heart of Netscape, Camino, and others, is also a very helpful tool for web development. This article outlines some of the tips and tricks.
CMS Review is a new site that features a variety of resources about content management systems. Among the features is a tool that allows you to compare two CMS packages. Pick the two systems (all open-source at this point) from dropdown lists and you get a nice side-by-side comparison of the systems.
One of the references in a recent Boxes and Arrows article led to a Fast Company article on analyzing search logs: She Reads Customers' Minds. The article, from 2001, describes how Nordstroms uses search logs to tweak their search taxonomy, ensuring that customers find what they're looking for. Its nice to now that this practice has received mainstream press.
From Boxes and Arrows comes a nice introduction to Creating a Controlled Vocabulary.
For anyone interested in search technology, read A Day In The Life Of BBCi Search.
Zeldman points to a new accessibility site called Made for All. Looks to be quite nice. The current issue has a nice interview with accessibility expert Joe Clark. And they have a news section (read: blog) on accessibility issues.
Cooper's Steve Calde has a nice overview article entitled "Design Research: Why you need it." An excerpt:
A design research phase consists of three main activities: stakeholder interviews, domain research, and user interviews. Some combination of all three makes for a successful phase. The length of each activity depends on the complexity of the product. More is always better, but effective design research can be gathered in a relatively short amount of time.
Netscape's DevEdge has part 2 of the interview with Mike Davidson of ESPN.com. The interview touches on some of the decisions made, code choices, limitations, and validation. A quote:
After our relaunch, I read a post on a blog from someone who made the argument to his company that "supporting Netscape 4 posed a business risk" and shouldn't be opted for because the upside was not worth the risk. That's definitely a profound concept worth using if you're trying to justify a standards-based redesign at your company. The "business risk" is that you're creating code which is not forward-compatible, not repurposable, and not modular enough to scale to different media. The "lack of upside" refers to the fact that you may only be alienating such a small percentage of your audience, most of which can upgrade if they want to.
Following up on my comments about the IA Summit: I came across an article by Richard Wiggins discussing his "Accidental Thesaurus" concept (PDF). The article is well worth the read.
Nielsen's latest Alertbox column is on Intranet Portals. A couple of quotes:
Technology accounts for roughly one-third of the work in launching a good portal; internal processes account for the rest.
The real challenge is to get contributors from individual departments to comply with the portal rules, enter decent meta-data, and refrain from fielding maverick intranet servers outside the portal's scope.
Intranet portals aim to replace the wild Web model with a tool metaphor, where a company's content and services work together instead of undermining each other. Having a single starting point, a single overview of each user's most important services, a single search, a single navigation scheme and information architecture, and a single set of consistent page design templates all combine to make the intranet portal a more promising corporate information infrastructure.
Three good points. And there are few more jems to be found amongst Nielsen's self-promotion. Ignore the fact that Nielsen is trying to sell you a report (and/or his usability services), and focus on some of his good advice.
Boxes and Arrows has published a two-part recap of the recent IA Summit in Portland: Part 1 and Part 2. The recap features fairly detailed summaries (2 or 3 paragraphs each) of all the sessions. Its a nice way to get a quick view of the state of Information Architecture today.
Some nuggets:
Richard Wiggins talked about creating an "Accidental Thesaurus" (as reported by Chiara Fox in Part 1):
To create an accidental thesaurus, first review your search logs to find the most popular search phrases. Plot your queries and you will get a Zipf distribution, showing that a small number of unique searches accounts for a large number of all searches performed. Enter the most popular searches into a database and match each phrase to "the best" URL. A database with only 1000 entries can assist users with 50% of their searches. At MSU they manage this database via a web interface. When the user searches, first the keyword database is queried, then the search engine. The results are presented together on the same page, with the hand picked results at the top. This improves both end-user and content provider satisfaction. Any non-trivial site can benefit from this technique.
Aaron Louie (a UW iSchool MLIS student) had a poster on faceted classification (PDF). Its a well done poster, and he's doing some interesting work with faceted classification and Zope.
James Spahr's poster visualizes two years of Apache logs into a pretty cool diagram (PDF).