Talking through Web strategy with a client today, we consider just how "nimble" a Web site should be - how frequently should a Web site redesign, based on changing mission priorities?
This is a particularly difficult question for large organizations with so much to say and no easy way to say it. Web sites that bend too far in the direction of the mission du jour may neglect content that is not part of that mission. The result for unsuspecting users may be "information paralysis," an overwhelming amount of content that could have been useful - had the user route been planned for those residing outside of the current mission priority.
Large associations and nonprofits frequently struggle with the challenge of meeting the needs of multiple constituencies. The solution is not to change the entry experience every time the organization takes on a new initiative; the solution is to create an information architecture that will continue to support known and ongoing constituencies, while creating a structural option that accommodates the changing initiatives of the future.
The time for "nimble" is in the planning and prototyping stages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The key is putting this into practice. In terms of designing the site architechture you need to account for some secondary floating areas that your organization can comfortably support as well as giving the site operators (*not* the programmers) the ability to update these themselves. This designing in of "promotional spots" on high visibility areas like the home page, being able to add navigational items and pages, comment out or elimination mentions of expired programs, etc., is key to making sure a site will be able to flex to the operational needs of the business without having to redesign every six months. These blank spots need to be baked into the site at the design stage, it's hard (and often expensive in programming time or harmful to site design and usability integrity) to do them later.
ReplyDelete