Archive for January, 2009

The arbitrary nature of classification

As part of our work on the UW Technology Service Catalog we had to agree on a taxonomy into which we can arrange our services. Despite my years in library school, whenever I have to do a classification exercise I am always struck by the ways in which any classification scheme is at some level an arbitrary decision to freeze one particular view while excluding many other possibly equally valid ones.

In preparing for a presentation today I came across a couple of good quotes that show that this is not an original observation.

“Crude classifications and false generalizations are the curse of organized life.”

– George Bernard Shaw

“Inanimate objects are classified scientifically into three major categories – those that don’t work, those that break down and those that get lost.”

– Russell Baker

Those, of course, go along with Duke Ellington’s famous observation that

“There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.”

Content Management Systems use at the UW

I’m working (with lots of wonderful colleagues) on creating a catalog of services offered by UW Technology. Last month I needed to work on publishing the draft content, and that required browsing to the content from a hierarchical list of terms (the categories of services). We had been working in Sharepoint, but people told me that creating a hierarchical content browse is not easy in Sharepoint. I looked around a bit and found that Drupal has native support for what they call “taxonomy”, which looked like it would suit my purposes, and off I went exploring. When I asked a Drupal question on our techsupport list, I was astounded by the number of responses posted back to the list. That got me wondering what people are doing with content management systems at the UW, so I put out a quick survey (using Catalyst WebQ) and posted the notice to several campus lists.

Fifty-four people responded to my survey! That alone speaks to a lot of activity in the CMS world here at the UW. By the number of people who are in the beginning stages of implementation, it’s probably safe to say that widespread use of CMS at the UW is a fairly new phenomenon. While I didn’t specifically ask what factors were driving people towards CMS adoption, several were mentioned: Allowing content providers the ability to enter and edit their own content without knowing HTML; the ability to organize and reorganize content easily; and being able to control look and feel of pages across a site or multiple sites. One person noted that it’s not necessarily easy: “The learning curve has been HUGE for those that arent tech savvy, as well as some of those that are.”

11 people said they’re using multiple CMS. That might speak to the the fact that one system can’t accomplish all of what people want to do, or they’re in the process of switching from one platform to another, or it might just be that different efforts got started on different systems and the same person ended up having to support both resulting sites. One person explained, “We have a home grown cold fusion system that is outdated. We use Movable Type for simple blogging and now have 3 web sites published using Plone.”

The most popular system at the moment is Drupal (16 mentions), followed by Plone (11) and Sharepoint (11), then WordPress and Joomla (5 each) tied with various custom systems.  One of the custom system implementors offers this advice: “This approach is not for the faint-hearted. It has required us also to manage our own servers, something we’d much rather not be doing, but for financial and (at the time)technical reasons was necessary. Also, we are heavily reliant on a single individual’s programming skill, which at times makes me anxious.”

Other systems in use include  Movable Type, Ektron,  Confluence, TextPattern and Alfresco. Five people said they’re using a wiki platform for content management, and one is using Microsoft’s older Content Management Server. 

cms systems in use at UW

Perhaps the most interesting finding is that Drupal users are happier with their choice of CMS than users of other systems. I don’t know what to make of that, but it’s clearly true among this self-selecting sample.

uw-cms-satisfaction003

When asked why they chose their particular system responses ranged from inheriting a previous choice to the availability of specific kinds of features. It appears that different implementations are prioritizing different features. One person said they picked Sharepoint over an alternative platform “…because the document management was more robust, e.g. document check-in/out and version control”, while another said their choice of Plone was influenced by “Fine-grain permission control on content, extensibility and availability of plug-ins…”.

A couple of people stated they had picked Drupal in part because it makes it easy to host multiple sites from the same installation. One said “This CMS lets us host multiple web sites, each with its own theme, without having to install a separate instance of the CMS or its plugins. We have plans for three additional websites, geared for specific department programs, so this will be a help!”

Several people noted they had picked a choice because it was open source, though nobody specifically mentioned wanting to modify core source code – perhaps what really attracted them to open source platforms is that they’re free. 

One person noted they picked Drupal over others because experience with PHP seems easier to come by than other languages such as Python or .NET – but I’d like to know if people really are finding a need to delve into source code language when using any of the CMS systems.

There were a couple of mentions of specific choices being made because they were able to leverage existing IT infrastructure, particularly around authentication, identity management, and roles. One stated “For intranet use a couple key criteria were support for groups/roles and LDAP. Drupal’s LDAP support was less hackish than Mambo at the time; Joomla! may have improved that.”

Several people noted that they picked their choice because of the community around that platform – either other UW departments using it or a large Internet community offering support and modules. Both of those were particularly true of the Drupal users, and to a lesser extent the Plone and Sharepoint respondents. One respondent said “We use Plone because the libraries’ is using it and there is a lot of support at the UW for it. It also seems to have a great user base outside the UW and the project group are committed to improving it and responsive to requests for changes”, while another noted Drupal’s “large, active development community; best of breed modules”.  Some Sharepoint users said they picked Sharepoint because it fit well with the Windows platform use in their unit. One person noted that they really had wanted Sharepoint but their department forced them to choose Plone because it was supported.

I think there’s lots of interesting information here – comments are open, and I hope it’s the start of more discussion. What do you think?

Here are sites that people said were ok to share, grouped by the CMS used:

Drupal

http://www.washington.edu/facilities
http://www.biostat.washington.edu/
http://www.washington.edu/facilities/transportation
http://f2.washington.edu/treasury/riskmgmt/

Plone

http://heal-wa.org
http://www.rad.washington.edu
http://catalyst.washington.edu/

Sharepoint

http://www.foster.washington.edu

Joomla

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/dec07/index.php

WordPress

http://depts.washington.edu/tc/wordpress
http://staff.washington.edu/fmf/

Custom

http://www.pathology.washington.edu
http://dmg.caup.washington.edu
http://www.ischool.washington.edu
http://www.uwnews.org
http://csde.washington.edu

Other

http://mullinslab.microbiol.washington.edu (Movable Type)
http://www.washington.edu/uaa/gateway/advising (Textpattern)
https://moodle.washington.edu (Moodle)
http://hfs.washington.edu (Ektron)

2009 predictions from New Year’s Eve Party

I’m finally getting around to posting the 2009 predictions that were made at our New Year’s Eve party. Drum roll, please!

Tom – one car company will go under.
Ed – Keith Richards will die.
Jeannie – Economy will not recover.
Michele – Sara Palin will disappear to raise her grandson. Michael Jackson will die.
Oren – Seattle will have another snow event this winter.
Tom – BB King will die.
Michele – Katie will decide to go to grad school.
Chris – We’ll pay less for gas (on an overall average) than in 2008.
Manny – They’ll discover that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are one and the same person.

And finally – the prediction on how many games the Mariners will win:
Oren: 80
Tom: 74
Marcia: 76

We’ll have to check back next New Year’s Eve!

Apple – the right hand giveth and the left hand nickle-and-dimeth you

I’m really happy to see that all of the content music in the iTunes store will be available with no DRM. That’s a big step forward – just tonight I was denied the right to play some of my music on my family room computer because it’s not authorized for my purchased iTunes content and I already have the maximum five machines authorized. Unfortunately two of those machines are no longer functioning, so I can’t de-authorize them. So I thought – here’s a perfect opportunity to change those tunes I purchased from iTunes (not very many – usually I buy through eMusic or Amazon).

Then I found out that Apple wants 30 cents a tune to change content I already paid for to the non-DRM’ed version. Does anybody besides me think that’s totally outrageous?


subscribe

Pages

Latest tweets

interesting links

What I’m listening to

January 2009
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.