OEIT web 1.2

‘past, present, future’

Molly Ruggles

‘web 0.1’

Fall/-winter 2007

‘web 1.0’

Winter 2008

March 28

Spring 2008

news section

Late Summer 2008

‘web 1.2’

Fall 2008

• Web 1.0 (old OEIT web)

• 7 content areas– ‘Label’ orientation

• Thicker banner area• Narrow content area• Front page highlight

• gerry-rigged news

• Web 1.2 (current OEIT web)

• 5 content areas– ‘Action’ orientation

• Thinner banner area• Wider content area• Front page portal to:

– What we do --> Case Studies– How we can help --> enquiry

form– News and announcements --

> news archives

Comparison

Site content:

• Web 1.0: old OEIT web– 3 areas of ‘service’:

• Proj consulting• S/W: dev, int. proj mgt• Outreach

– 5 ‘program areas’• Vis & Stim• Collaboration Tools• X-media• Course & Learning Admin• Active learning environ.

– 4 learning spaces– Gallery of Projects– People– Mission - hedgehog, strategy– partners– Pubs/archives

• Web 1.2: new OEIT web• All of old OEIT web content, re-

organized and labeled • And:

– Case studies– Crosstalk info and link– Enquiry form– Awards & achievement

Web 2.0….?

CMS. Why….?• Provide a consistent navigation scheme, thematically similar templates, and an

easy and well-structured way to build on to the site.– Bring disparate web elements together under on ‘roof’ (see next page)

• OEIT staff get a dynamically generated ”CV” page which lists contact info, the projects they’ve worked on, or will be working on. Staff can add to this material as they like, and can customize.

• More fully engage MIT faculty, OEIT staff, the ed tech community by providing opportunities for user participation: blogs, forums, adhoc disc groups.

• Hierarchy of user authentication levels. Will provide:– Site security and stability– Distributed management of specific site pages or areas of site.– Authentication for blog participation: expand/control pool of authorized

posters, eliminate spam in comments fields.• Repository for project gallery, photo gallery. Serve-up multimedia content,

searchable across multiple fields, categories.– Utilize structures inherent in CMS, or integrate systems such as KEEP,

dSpace, etc.?• Metadata tagging as a 3rd option as a gateway to content.

– User generated? How much anonymous participations in the site? Will need more content than is there currently in order to leverage the benefits of tag clouds.

Another view

OEIT web

Web.mit.edu/crosstalk

Web.mit.edu/nmc

Edtech.mit.edu/times

Web.mit.edu/STAR

Tag cloud example

http://commons.carnegiefoundation.org/fave/fave-queries.php?timelimit=30

Staff pages

Thank-you

Questions?

Comments?