A Web Strategy for Princeton

Report of the Web Strategy Task Force

Introduction

In the spring of 2001, a task force was assembled to examine how Princeton was using

the World Wide Web and to propose a strategy, or at least elements of a strategy, for how it might

use it in the future to support its programs of teaching and research, to conduct its administrative

activities, and to communicate with and serve a wide variety of audiences both internal and

external to the University. Although the task force learned a great deal about ways in which

faculty members and students use the Web in their research and as part of the teaching program,

the focus of the task force was not on individual use of the Web for academic purposes, but on

use by departments and offices of the University to achieve their missions and by the University

as a whole as a central element of an overall program of engagement with the many

constituencies of the University and the broader public.

The members of the task force are listed in Appendix A and on the website developed by

the task force at http://www.princeton.edu/webstrategy. The task force was initially chaired by

Bob Durkee, vice president for public affairs, who was later joined as co-chair by the

University’s newly arrived vice president for information technology and chief information

officer, Betty Leydon.

The initial charge to the task force was as follows:

 2

1. Identify the audiences (internal and external) with which the University seeks to
communicate and do business via the Web and elucidate both their goals and our goals
for those interactions.

2. Compile an up-to-date inventory of the ways in which the University currently

communicates and does business via the Web and an assessment of their effectiveness.

3. Propose a strategy for improved and expanded University use of the Web and policies,
guidelines, and an appropriate administrative structure for carrying it out (including
recommendations regarding staffing, reporting relationships, accountability, oversight,
etc.). Answer the question: What do we want to be sure people can find and do via the
Web and what kind of experience do we want them to have?

4. Specifically, consider:

a) the mission, design, and content of the University's home page, including all links
directly from that page.

b) the design, content, and responsibility for maintaining pages that are one or two
levels removed from the home page.

c) the possible development of rules, templates, or guidelines for other University-

related pages, whether individual offices or programs should be required to maintain
pages, and, if so, according to what standards.

d) the nature and number of University-related portal pages.

e) the websites of offices that attract an especially large number of visitors (including
websites related to admission and financial aid).

f) relationships with pages commissioned by the University but maintained outside the
University, such as the athletics home page.

g) possible e-commerce opportunities, implications, and concerns.

h) policies regarding webcasting.

i) the status of efforts to develop a University-wide calendar.

5. The task force needs to be aware of uses of the Web for internal administrative
purposes and for academic purposes, but those are not the principal areas on which it
will focus.
 3

Organizational Phase

The task force began its work with a series of eye-opening meetings in which staff

members from the Office of Information Technology (OIT) and other offices demonstrated the

many ways in which Princeton was already using the Web and the many resources already

available to students, faculty, staff, and alumni. (Some of these presentations are available on the

task force website.) Perhaps most striking about these early meetings was the degree to which

everyone on the committee, even senior staff members of OIT, were unaware of all that was

available, and the degree to which offices throughout the University were working on Web-

related issues in isolation or duplication. There was an early consensus that, if nothing else, the

task force could make an important contribution by encouraging cooperation, collaboration, and

the sharing of information, and by increasing awareness throughout the University of the Web-

based resources and services that were already available.

This report will not recount the many ways in which the Web is used, but it might be

instructive to list the topics that were covered in these initial presentations: a history of the

Princeton University Web; the Princeton home page; Web publishing; academics on the Web

(through OIT and the Educational Technologies Center), including the creation of websites for all

undergraduate courses and special projects for the Library, the Art Museum, and alumni

educational programs; streaming media; independent departmental initiatives in the Woodrow

Wilson School and the Library; independent outsourced initiatives in Athletics and the Alumni

Council (TigerNet, which began in 1994, now has 19,000 alumni registered and 70 discussion

groups); student Web space; e-commerce; portals, including the DEMAND (DEpartmental

MANagersDesktop) portal for integrated access to administrative applications; P2K initiatives;

 4

calendars; database capabilities; legal issues (including privacy and intellectual property); Web

security; content management; and technical infrastructure.

By late spring, the task force had made an initial attempt to organize its work, broadly

categorizing the questions before it as follows:

Questions of Purpose: How does the University want to use the Web to support its

programs of teaching and research; to conduct the business and administrative activity of the

University, including e-commerce; to support the undergraduate and graduate admission

processes; and for internal communication within the University community and external

communication to a broad range of groups.

Questions Pertaining to Rules, Standards, Practices, etc.: Should we develop visual,

organizational, content, design, technical, and legal standards and templates for “official”

University websites (with the term “official” to be defined)? In which cases should their use be

“mandatory”? When use is not mandated, what incentives should be offered? Should we create

“recommended” vendor lists for outsourcing? How should we improve the design, content, and

navigability of the University’s main home page? Can we better index the University website

and adopt a better internal search engine? (Google was installed as the internal search engine

shortly thereafter, to general approbation.) Who should be responsible for content management

of individual office or departmental websites?

 5

Questions Pertaining to Support for Web Use: What resources are necessary (staff,

servers, software) to support greater use of the Web? If the University sets standards and

expectations, what must it do to enable users to meet them? Can we provide adequate training

and technical support for developing and maintaining websites? Can we develop simple and

flexible tools for Web design and content management that can be applied with a minimum of

technical sophistication? Can we provide graphic design support for creating, embellishing, and

modifying websites? Can we develop policies and procedures for authentication and security so

that information is accessible to those who should have access and inaccessible to those who

should not? Can we develop an administrative and policy structure for overseeing and managing

Web use?

Working Groups

In June 2001, the task force took two important steps: it welcomed Betty Leydon to its

deliberations and it created working groups to develop recommendations in five areas in which it

had decided to concentrate its efforts. The five groups, with their chairs and charges, were as

follows:

Group I: Outreach and Assessment (Lauren Robinson-Brown and Lorene Lavora)

Mission: Inform the University community of services available to them to use the Web to
communicate and conduct business; and

Assess the desirability of Princeton supporting other potential uses that are
currently available elsewhere or are likely to become available in the foreseeable
future.
 6

Group II: Policy (Bob Durkee, Betty Leydon)

Mission: Develop a set of policy statements to guide University Web usage; and

Evolve into a Web Policy Council composed of senior-level providers and users
that would provide continuing policy guidance and help set priorities and resolve
disputes.

Group III: Design and Standards (Hank Dobin, Serge Goldstein)

Mission: Define what is meant by an official University website and the nature and level of
support to which such sites are entitled;

Create a set of basic technical standards and tools that all University websites
could incorporate and propose which, if any, should be mandatory;

Create a University style guide, design templates, and content management

programs that can be used by creators and managers of University websites;

Develop policies and procedures for training and assistance for those managing a
University website; and

Recommend strategies for dealing with issues of security, legal requirements,

access for those with disabilities; etc.

Group IV: Home Page (Lauren Robinson-Brown, Lorene Lavora)

Mission: Assess both internal and external user satisfaction with the home page and its key
links by conducting a survey to understand what users are seeking and how
successful they are; and

Thoroughly review the structure, organization, design, content, and ease of

navigation of the home page and work with the Communications office as it
develops an improved arrangement for the page.

Group V: Transactions (Nancy Costa, Van Williams)

Mission: Research, share expertise, and make recommendations regarding transactional,

i.e. “doing business,” rather than information-providing aspects of the Web,
including e-commerce, ticket sales, student admissions, job applications, library
uses, forms, etc.
 7

The following sections of this report will describe the activities of the working groups.

The expectation was that these groups would work through the summer, report back to the full

task force in the fall, receive additional feedback, pursue additional work based on that feedback,

and join with all members of the task force in developing a series of overall findings and

recommendations. In fact, much of this happened. Each of the groups worked over the summer

and posted materials on the website, and much of the work that began under the auspices of the

working groups continues to this day. The task force as a whole did meet in the fall and drafted a

set of overall recommendations that are presented at the end of this report. But two

developments in the early fall deterred the task force from the full completion of its appointed

rounds and delayed the preparation of this report.

One was the transformation of the newly renamed, and later thoroughly reorganized,

Office of Information Technology under Betty Leydon’s leadership. To some extent, the Web

Strategy Task Force had been created to begin a series of discussions and establish a set of

working relationships in anticipation of the arrival of a new CIO, but always with the expectation

that the new CIO would then take on principal long-term responsibility for articulating a Web

strategy for the University. Others, of course, also need to play an active role in developing and

carrying out such a strategy, including importantly the academic leaders of the University, those

responsible for its overall communications strategy (including the vice president for public

affairs and the director of communications), and those responsible for its business activities

(including the treasurer). One of the recommendations of the task force, which Betty has

strongly endorsed, is that there should be regular ongoing consultation with a group like the task

force, and there also should be periodic consultation with other users, including faculty and
 8

students. The more Betty and the offices reporting to her became engaged in Web-related issues

(as we hoped would be the case), the more the work of the task force was integrated into more

regularized channels. This was a positive development, but it did alter the role and nature of the

task force.

The second major development, or more accurately succession of developments, that

delayed the work and the report of the task force were the attacks of September 11 and the

discovery of anthrax in Princeton’s local post office. These developments preempted many

regular University activities, and fully consumed the time and energies of many who were

leading the working groups and the task force. The University’s response to these events

demonstrated the enormous power of the Web in times of crisis as a mean of conveying

information, building a sense of community, and carrying out the work of the University. But we

were also reminded that while the Web dramatically amplifies human capacity, its effective (and

sensitive) use depends on human talents, energies, and judgment, and that as user expectations

increase, so too do the demands on the staff who design the Web, fill it with content, and make it

work.

As already mentioned, the following sections of this report describe the work of the

working groups. The concluding section conveys the recommendations of the task force as a

whole.

Policy
 9

Both the task force and the policy group spent several meetings developing a draft policy

statement that would guide the work of the other working groups and could be proposed to the

University as a starting point for further discussions of Web strategy. The draft policy statement

is as follows (and also attached as Appendix B):

WEB STRATEGY POLICY STATEMENT

Values

As an institution devoted to teaching and learning and a community devoted to scholarship and
service, Princeton places high value on providing broad and easy access to useful, accurate, and
up-to-date information and services via the Web and on expanding and improving its use of the
Web to communicate with its many audiences and conduct its business. It is committed to
excellence in content, design, and customer service, and to using the Web both to enhance its
commitment to diversity and to build an ever stronger sense of community. To effectively carry
out its commitments to excellence and expanded use, Princeton will need to dedicate the
resources needed for systems infrastructure, development tools, and staff support and training.
The University respects the individuality, freedom of expression, privacy, and creativity of
individual users of the Web, while also committing itself to the highest possible standards of
reliability, efficiency, security, ease of use, and technical support for providers and users. As a
University with a distinctive identity and mission, Princeton expects that its websites will convey
that distinctiveness—that they will have a look and feel that conveys a sense of the idea and the
place that is Princeton.

Audiences

Princeton strives to communicate with and serve the following audiences through the Web:
current students (undergraduate and graduate), faculty, and staff; prospective students, faculty,
and staff; trustees; alumni; parents of students; current and prospective donors (alumni and non-
alumni); the news media, broadly defined; opinion leaders; political officials (principals and
staff, at local, state, and national levels); local residents; the general public.

Proposed Policies

To advance the University’s values, goals, and purposes, we propose the following policies for
University use and management of the Web:

1. It is the University’s policy to encourage and support increasing use of the Web to
communicate with internal and external audiences, to enhance programs of teaching and
research, and to conduct the University’s business. This encouragement and support must
 10

include appropriate funding levels for systems infrastructure, developments tools, and staffing
levels.

2. The University recognizes that some uses of the Web will supercede and substitute for
existing practices while other uses will complement other means of communicating, conducting
business, or engaging in teaching and research. It is the University’s policy to use the Web to
replace existing practices when that can be done in a way that advances the University’s values,
goals, and purposes.

3. It is the University’s policy to respect individual freedom of expression and to encourage

creativity, individuality, and innovation in the use of the Web, but also to establish basic
technical, design, content, and legal standards (including respect for copyright and accessibility
requirements) for “official” University websites. Official websites would include those of
University offices, departments, programs, task forces, and official events. These standards will
include a requirement to have a Princeton “identity” (to be defined) and to be linked to the
Princeton home page.

4. It is the University’s policy to require each course, academic department/program, and

administrative office to maintain a website that meets certain established standards, and also to
provide the tools, templates, staff support, and training necessary for courses, departments, and
offices to meet this requirement.

5. It is the University’s policy to use the Web as a vehicle for making timely announcements of
University news, for communicating emergency information, and for providing information
about events and activities (calendar).

6. It is the University’s policy to make continuous efforts to increase the functionality and ease
of use of University websites, and thereby to increase the success and satisfaction of visitors to
University websites.

Design and Standards

The design and standards working group helped to clarify many of the core questions that

need to be addressed in implementing a comprehensive (or at least reasonably comprehensive)

Web strategy, and made a number of preliminary recommendations. Appendix C summarizes the

discussions and tentative recommendations of a design sub-group regarding what “must,”

“should, and “can” be on Princeton websites. Appendix D summarizes the thoughts of a “tools

sub-group” led by Kirk Alexander on development tools, including content management systems
 11

and templates. Appendix E is a draft set of final recommendations, largely prepared by Serge

Goldstein, that recommends the creation of a Web Page Registry as the authoritative index of all

“official” Princeton University pages and the creation of a typology of Web pages to allow for

flexibility in the application of policy and design standards. It then proposes a minimum set of

design and coding standards that might be applicable to all registered, i.e. “official,” pages.

Those standards might include the following:

1. All pages in the registry will include a “meta” tag as part of their HTML header
information. This Princeton-unique “meta” tag will contain the registry “page id,”
thereby linking the page to the registry. Using this page id, scripts can be written that
refer back to the registry to extract a variety of meta-information about the page. The
page id will, in essence, stamp the page as being “official”. Adherence to conformance
level A of the WAI accessibility standards.
2. If the Princeton University name, shield, or other trademark is used, it will be selected
from a fixed set of images or text elements maintained by a central group. We do not
think the inclusion of a Princeton identifier should be required for all pages, but if an
identifier is used, it should be a standard one.
3. Use of photographs of the University from a “standard” set maintained by a central
group.
4. Inclusion of a visible contact and date field at the bottom of the page. If required by the
DMCA act, inclusion of a visible copyright field that hot-linked to the University’s
DMCA page (as is currently the case for the Princeton home page). The contact should
be a “mailto” link
5. Links to any other “official” ( = registered) page be done via a registry “Pseudo-URL”,
rather than through an actual URL.
6. We may want to require some kind of copyright “sign-off” by the page’s “copyright
owner” group. On the other hand, the University may not want to be viewed as
“policing” the web space, so the specifics here need to be worked out by the counsel’s
office.

Certain types of pages (e.g., the Princeton home page) might be required to comply with

additional standards. Since these pages must be viewable and decipherable by almost anyone

with any kind of Web access and just about any browser, the following might be required:

1. Compliance with conformance level A of the WAI standards.

2. Coding in HTML 4.0.
3. No use of plugins or any other objects requiring separate downloads.
 12

4. Some kind of server specifications, e.g., that the server which hosts the page be on a
UPS.

Appendix E then goes on to say the following:

We may want to obtain funding to purchase a content management system that can
facilitate the creation and management of the registry. We believe existing staff can provide the
manpower resources to populate the registry, to develop the typology, and to refine the design
and coding standards. Where we see a potential need for additional resources, in people,
software and hardware, is in helping departments implement whatever standards we develop.
We may need to provide incentives … because the domain is too vast to be policed effectively
(carrot, rather than stick, approach). We believe the best possible incentives come in the way of
people who can help departments design and code their pages. While existing staff, in Web
Services and Communications, can handle the registry and provide basic support for
departmental web pages, additional staff resources in these groups will make it possible to
implement the typology in a reasonable time frame.

If our recommendations for the creation of a web page registry and typology are
accepted, then most of the outstanding issues and questions come down to deciding the specifics
of the typology and the registry fields. Indeed, that is one clear benefit of this approach; it
provides a framework within which additional questions can be asked and answered. If the
registry is not implemented, but the typology is, then there will have to be a mechanism created
whereby we can decided to which pages any given standards should, or should not, apply. If the
registry is implemented, but not the typology, then the design and coding standards will have to
be very, very general.

In discussing its work with the policy group and the full task force, the design and

standards group found considerable consensus that it was on the right track. The University

should expect to exercise different degrees of responsibility for different types of websites,

ranging from those that speak for the University as a whole, to those that, while “official,” speak

for an individual department or office, to those that, while hosted on the University’s servers, are

the pages of individual members of the faculty or student body. (One question left unanswered

was how to categorize the websites of student organizations.) There almost certainly are a

number (probably a modest number) of requirements that the University should adopt for

“official” websites (or at least for certain categories of official websites), and there are a much
 13

larger number of preferences and suggestions that the University can express and templates it can

offer. The requirements almost certainly should include some Princeton identifier, a link to the

Princeton home page (and perhaps to a registry page or to a designated contact person), and

adherence to University copyright policy. It was widely agreed that the University ought to

obtain a content management system to facilitate use of the Web by University departments and

offices and should invest in the training and support necessary to implement and sustain the

system. Such a system would make it easier to hold individual departments and offices

responsible for the accuracy and timeliness of their sites.

Transactions

As indicated in the report it submitted to the task force last fall (attached as Appendix F),

the first priority of the transactions group was to make it possible for the University to carry out a

number of financial transactions by deploying a standard method for the University to accept

credit card transactions over the Web. Following extensive review by the working group and

OIT, the University selected a single vendor, VeriSign, for online credit card authorization, using

merchant accounts managed by PNC Bank. Agreements for these relationships have been

established by the Treasurer’s office for the Art Museum, the Development office, and the

Undergraduate Admission office. Beginning in September 2002, the Admission office will be

accepting Part I of the admission application over the Web and will accept credit card payments

for the application fee.

The working group also supported the deployment of electronic fund transfer systems for

students, faculty, and staff to eliminate the need to write checks and applauded OIT’s
 14

development of the University’s first administrative application over the Web, Time Collection.

The group noted that “as a result, the University has documented a standard architecture for

deploying future administrative applications over the Web.” The group also began to research e-

commerce guidelines and policies at other universities.

After financial transactions, the working group’s second priority was implementation of a

Web-based University events calendar. After many years in the making under the auspices of an

Administrative Process Team co-chaired by Eric Hamblin and Lorene Lavora, a prototype

“Public Events Calendar” adapted from WebEvent software was added to the University’s home

page in May 2002 as a shared responsibility of OIT’s Web Services Group and the Office of

Communications. At full implementation, the calendar will allow community members to search

for events by date and category and make it easier for event planners to avoid scheduling

conflicts. Initial indications are that the staffing demands associated with operation of the

calendar will be significant, and may well exceed the capacity of the Web Services and

Communications offices, both of which are already stretched thin and neither of which received

any additional staff to meet these additional responsibilities.

The working group’s other priorities, in descending order, were: (1) phasing in additional

capability for students, faculty, staff, and alumni to update biographical and demographical data

through the Web; (2) identifying standard, easy-to-use tools that departments and organizations

on campus could use to generate surveys on the Web and collect/store/analyze the data; and (3)

adopting standard tools for event management by departments and organizations that plan and

conduct large events. The group also noted the establishment of a new Internet Services Task
 15

Force (the Committee on Leadership in Alumni Web Services, or CLAWS) that was created by

the Alumni Council and Development to create a road map for expanding staff and

alumni/volunteer services via the Web, and the continuing work of Partnership 2000 to improve

administrative systems using the Web, including projects in the Offices of Undergraduate

Admission and Financial Aid to implement new systems that will deliver Web-enabled

functionality.

Home Page

There have been a number of changes in the University’s home page since the task force

began its work, although the basic structure of the page has remained unchanged. This basic

structure contains two principal elements: a set of navigation bars to the left of the page that are

designed to enable visitors to the site to obtain information, and a regularly refreshed

communications presence on the rest of the page that provides news headlines and

announcements. The page has Princeton identifiers in its use of orange, the Princeton shield, and

rotating Princeton landmark photos, and it also uses a large news-related photo to add visual

interest to the page.

While there were dissenting voices on the task force, in general there was strong support

for Princeton’s basic approach and for sustaining a basic “look” that users had come to identify

with Princeton. It is absolutely critical that visitors to the site be able to find what they are

seeking, and several changes to the home page during the past year have been designed to

increase the likelihood that those seeking information will be successful. One was the addition

of the Google search feature to the home page in a prominent location. Another was the addition
 16

of a “WebMail” button. A third was a renaming of one of the other buttons (from “campus

services” to “administration”) and a reorganizing of the sites under the “administration” and

“campus life” headings to eliminate the previous confusion over the difference between “campus

services” and “campus life” and to indicate where visitors should go if they are looking for

administrative information. In the view of the task force, these were useful first steps toward a

more thorough review of (a) which navigation bars should be on the home page; (b) what they

should be called; and (c) what should be included under each one. The task force also explored

the possibility that we should offer a second set of navigation bars, as a number of other

universities do, with information organized not by topic, but by the kind of user (e.g., potential

applicants, faculty, staff, alumni, etc.) Some initial work suggested that the benefits of adding

these groupings might not outweigh the additional clutter they would bring to the page, but it

was agreed that further exploration should take place. Another model would allow the user

passing over each of the navigation bars to see the kinds of pages that can be found underneath

those bars. It was agreed that this approach also should be explored.

With respect to the rest of the page, there have been two major changes over the past

year. One is much greater frequency of turnover in the news and associated photograph (along

with some clarifying improvements in nomenclature and the removal of the static “president’s

welcome”). One of the theories behind the page is that it provides visitors with a sense that

Princeton is a dynamic institution (as compared with pages at some institutions where the focus

is on static navigation bars, perhaps with a small peripheral news feature). The Princeton focus

is on what is happening on campus, with a special emphasis on research findings, faculty and

student achievements, major University announcements, etc. Our hope is that the news will be
 17

of interest to first-time visitors from the outside, and that the frequent turnover will sustain the

interest of frequent outside visitors. Our goal with respect to members of the campus community

is to encourage them to visit at least once each day, and to expect that we will use the home page

as a means of conveying timely information (i.e., “announcement’) as well as “headlines.”

A second major development this past year was the use of the home page in the

immediate aftermath of September 11 and during the anthrax crisis to post regular updates—

sometimes several times a day. This experience encouraged users to visit the page frequently

and to expect information to be refreshed on a regular basis. We created a special link for “crisis

response,” in the space on the page that now houses the link to the “public events calendar,”

which provides even further reason for users to make frequent use of the page, and increases the

importance of ensuring that it is regular refreshed.

Work on the design of the home page is continuing, along with the development of a

news@princeton page that will be intended to be especially helpful to the press.

Outreach and Assessment

The outreach and assessment working group encouraged the creation of a more

permanent structure that would encourage Web awareness and enhance on-campus

communication regarding Web tools and resources. Its proposal, attached as Appendix G, called

for a full-time Web Information Coordinator in Web Services who would develop strategies for

increasing Web awareness and manage and train a network of Web liaisons who would serve as
 18

the primary contacts between the Coordinator and the various academic departments and

administrative offices.

A major initiative of the outreach and assessment group was an on-line survey that was

posted on the University’s home page from November 12 through December 31. There was also

an e-mail sent campus-wide on November 16 to draw attention to the survey (and to the task

force and its website) and an article in the November 19 edition of the Princeton Weekly Bulletin.

Of the 1,968 people who responded to the survey, 29.5% were members of the staff,

20.8% were undergraduate students, 11.5% were prospective students, 10.2% were alumni, 6.9%

were general visitors, 6.4% were graduate students, and 5.7% were faculty members. There were

also a small number of trustees, parents, and representatives of the news media. Nearly 43% of

the respondents have Princeton’s home page set as their home page and 49% have another

Princeton page set as their home page. Some 60% check the University’s home page daily.

Most faculty, staff, students, and general visitors said the chief reason they return to the

University website is to read news items on the home page. Prospective students and their

parents primarily were looking for admission information, while alumni principally were using

TigerNet.

Between 75% and 84% of the respondents rated the look and feel of the University’s site,

the page loading speed, and the content as either good or excellent. Around 60% rated the

navigation and site organization as either good or excellent. However, in the write-in sections

numerous respondents proposed a more up-to-date look, fresher information, and clearer

navigation to the most sought-after sections as top priorities. About 50% said that finding items

on the Princeton website is comparable to finding information on other sites they frequent, but in
 19

the written comments the need for a better and quicker way to find campus offices and

departments was noted.

When asked which services are or could be most valuable to them, some three-quarters of

the respondents selected WebMail access, up-to-date University news, and a University-wide

events calendar—all of which reflect recent improvements in the home page. Somewhat less

important were searchable course catalogues and on-line versions of printed publications. For

future versions of the home page, a high number of respondents requested that it have a fast

download time, informative and timely content, logical organization, and a useful search engine.

Compelling graphics, a site map, and printable pages were less important to these users. Many

respondents offered specific suggestions for the design and content of the page. Those

respondents who currently manage campus websites said that services such as a content

management system, assistance from OIT personnel, integration of the University’s existing

databases with the website, and ready-to-use design elements would be most helpful to them.

The 211 faculty and staff respondents who said they create or help to create University

websites were asked how they determine whether they are in compliance with Princeton’s

copyright policies. Some 37% said they don’t know or don’t worry about copyright policies.

The other 63% report that they do make an effort to comply, either by trying to educate

themselves (32%), following the guidelines in the University’s online policy Web pages (28%),

or contacting the general counsel’s office (3%).

Although not within the purview of the task force, another important outreach initiative

this past year was the introduction by OIT of its periodic newsletter, IT Matters.
 20

Recommendations and Conclusions

The Web Strategy Task Force held its final meetings in November 2001. At that time it

discussed a number of recommendations and conclusions that it proposed be incorporated into a

draft report for final review. The recommendations and conclusions outlined below have not

benefited from further review, but do aim to reflect accurately the views of the task force as of

last fall, updated where appropriate to take into account more recent developments.

(1) The University should encourage Betty Leydon, as vice president for information

technology and chief information officer, to appoint a senior-level Web Policy

Council to provide continuing policy guidance and help set priorities and resolve

disputes regarding use of the Web. The task force also endorsed her plan to

consult regularly with providers and users from the faculty, staff, and student

body at more of a working group level to review and continually improve the

University’s use of the Web and to seek advice on a broad range of information

technology matters.

(2) The University should adopt a policy statement along the lines of the statement

drafted by the task force’s policy group, as incorporated into this report and

attached as Appendix B. Of special importance to the task force was the

recognition in the policy statement that to effectively carry out its commitments to

excellence and expanded use [of the Web], Princeton will need to dedicate the

resources needed for systems infrastructure, development tools, and staff support

and training.

(3) Through OIT, in collaboration with the Office of Communications and others, and

under the general oversight of the proposed Web Policy Council, the University
 21

should build on the excellent work of the design and standards working group to

create a typology of University Web pages; to adopt appropriate policy and

design standards; and to develop tools and templates, along with appropriate

incentives for their use, that can be made available to those creating and

maintaining University-related websites. As indicated earlier in this report, there

almost certainly are a number (probably a modest number) of requirements that

the University should adopt for “official” websites (or at least for certain

categories of official websites), and there are a much larger number of

preferences and suggestions that the University can express and templates it can

offer. The requirements almost certainly should include some Princeton

identifier, a link to the Princeton home page (and perhaps to a registry page or to

a designated contact person), and adherence to University copyright policy. It

was widely agreed that the University ought to obtain a content management

system to facilitate use of the Web by University departments and offices and

should invest in the training and support necessary to implement and sustain the

system.

(4) The University should press ahead with its plans to accept credit card transactions

and Part I of its undergraduate admission applications over the Web and to use the

Web for additional financial and administrative transactions. It also should

provide the staff support that proves necessary to fully implement the online

public events calendar that is now available through the University’s home page.

The task force also endorsed the other initiatives identified as desirable by the

transactions working group, and noted especially the need to consider the extent
 22

to which the University will support greater use of the Web for alumni activities

and services (e.g., through the creation of class and association websites) and for

support of its Development programs.

(5) The University should continue to improve the content, design, and functionality

of the main University home page. Significant improvements have already been

made in increasing the timeliness of the page; adding the Google search engine,

WebMail, and the events calendar; improving some aspects of navigation and

design; etc. The survey conducted by the task force provided considerable

support for the basic organization and approach of the page, but also provided a

number of very helpful suggestions for ways to improve it.

(6) Through OIT, in collaboration with the general counsel’s office and others, and

under the general oversight of the proposed Web Policy Council, the University

should thoroughly review its security procedures and its adherence to copyright

policy. The task force specifically noted the desirability of adopting a single sign-

on under which a user could be sufficiently authenticated to gain access to all

authorized, secured resources within one or more domains without additional

authentication. Since the task force concluded its deliberations, OIT has received

approval to add an Information Technology Security Officer to its staff; has

established an authenticated e-mail service; has developed strategies to encourage

users to change passwords from the default password promptly, to change

passwords periodically, and to select secure passwords; and has taken a number

of other steps to improve security.

 23

(7) Given the growing number of requests for webcasting and in support of an overall

outreach strategy, the University should develop facilities and capabilities that

allow for much greater use of video and audio.

These recommendations, and the others transmitted through this report, clearly represent

a work in progress. The task force appreciated its opportunities to learn more about Web use at

Princeton, to learn from each other and to identify a number of questions and issues for

consideration by the University community, to witness and encourage a number of improvements

in the University’s use of the Web; to collect information and prepare materials that it hopes will

be helpful as the University develops policies, procedures, standards, and resources for the use of

the Web; to underscore the importance of making an investment in Web development and

support at a level commensurate with the level at which the University wants to use the Web to

conduct business, for teaching and research, and for both internal and external communication;

and, hopefully, to demonstrate the usefulness of convening a body like the task force to provide

continuing counsel and oversight.

August 30, 2002