Transcript Powerpoint 97/2000 Format

Best Practices For
Project Web Sites
Based on experiences from previous programmes
Brian Kelly
UK Web Focus
UKOLN
University of Bath
UKOLN is supported by:
Email
[email protected]
URL
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
What Happens When The
Funding Stops?
When the project funding finishes:
 The project gracefully turns into a fully-fledged
service, with new funding from JISC, the EU,
your institution, etc.
 The project staff all leave and the Web site is
shut down, is moved and can’t be found, or is
broken and there is no-one with the interest,
expertise or permissions to fix it
An aim of this talk is to consider ways to help your project
migrate to an ongoing service, or to minimise disruption if
additional funding is not forthcoming
2
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Web Site Dissemination
We’ve Been Here Before
Web-Based Dissemination
News Feeds
Standards
Mirroring, Migration & Preservation
Monitoring & Benchmarking
Thoughts on Browsers
Conclusions
Embedding Web Service
You want people to know about your project –
but you also want your project deliverables to
be embedded within institutions
We’ve Been Here Before
Who remembers:
CTI Projects
• CBL applications locked into obsolete hardware
TLTP Projects
• CBL developers using Toolbook on standalone
PC, which could not be deployed on campus LAN
eLib Projects
• Web sites disappear
• Other issues (Stephen Pinfield’s talk)
EU Programmes
• …
4
Survey of EU Web Sites
WebWatching Telematics For Libraries
Project Web Sites (Fourth Framework)
• Exploit Interactive article published in Oct 2000
• Web site availability:
Yes
Never
65
16
Domain
Gone
11
Page
Gone
12
• Server details:
Apache – 41
Netscape – 3
IIS – 10
NCSA – 3
Other – 6 (e.g. Mac, GN)
• See <http://www.exploit-lib.org/
issue7/webwatch/>
5
Survey of eLib Web Sites
WebWatching eLib Project Web Sites
• Ariadne article published in Jan 2001
• Of 71 Web sites, 3 domains no longer available
and 2 entry points have gone
SOSIG 7,076
• LinkPopularity.com results shown: OMNI
5,830
EEVL
3,865
• Survey also includes:
History
2,605
 Analysis of entry points
Netskills 2,363
(links, HTML, accessibility)
Ariadne 2,144
 Nos. of pages indexed by AltaVista
…
- 0 in some cases 
xxx
~10
 Due to robots.txt file
 Due to frames interface or other robots barrier
• See <http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/
issue26/web-watch/>
6
Web Site Promotion
You want:
• Your quality pages to be found in a timely fashion
by users of search engines
• To encourage others to link to you
To ensure this happens you should:
• Have a domain and URL naming policy
• Exploit the Robots Exclusion Protocol
• Be aware of barriers to robots (which may also be
barriers to humans)
• Think about a linking policy and procedures
7
URL Naming Policy
Issues:
• Having your own domain is a good idea
(e.g. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/)
• Short URLs are good (more memorable;
search engines tend not to index deeply)
• Sub-domains may be a useful compromise
(e.g. http://ariadne.bath.ac.uk/)
• Keep URLs short by using directory defaults:
8
www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/metadata/intro.htm
www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/metadata/
Shorter, less prone to typos and allows for format and
language negotiation, new server management tools, etc
…/issue5/metadata/intro.fr.html
…/issue5/metadata/intro.pdf
(.cfm, .asp, .jsp)
Planning Search Engine
Strategy
You search for your project name and find a personal
page of a former colleague with informal information 
To avoid this:
• Distinguish between (a) initial information about
the project (b) information for project partners,
funders, etc. and (c) information for end user
• Use search engine techniques to:
 Ban search engines from indexing certain
pages
 Promote other pages
as appropriate
9
Robots
Make use of the Robots Exclusion Protocol (REP) to
ban robots from indexing :
• Non-public areas (e.g. area for partners)
• Pre-release Web sites
• Pages prior to an official launch
Note: Remember to switch off ban after launch!
User-agent: *
Disallow: /partners
Disallow: /draft
/robots.txt in Web root
Note that use of directories to group related resources will
have many benefits: controlling indexing robots, mirroring and
auditing software, etc.
10
Other Barriers To Indexing
Other barriers to indexing robots:
Frames
 Most search engines can’t index framesets and rely on
appropriate <NOFRAMES> tags
Flash (and other proprietary formats)
 Most search engines can’t index proprietary formats
Poorly implemented JavaScript pages
 Search engines may not have JavaScript interpreters and
can’t index text generated by JavaScript
Poorly implemented user-agent negotiation (clientor server-side)
 Most search engines don’t have a Netscape or IE useragent string and so will index “Upgrade to Netscape”
Invalid HTML Pages
11
 Search engines may not be as tolerant of HTML errors as
Web browsers
Accessibility
• Robots have similarities to the visually
impaired
• Good design for robots is likely to be good
design for people with disabilities (and vice
versa)
• Make use of Bobby (both versions) to check
accessibility – see
<http://www.cast.org/bobby/>
You should formulate plans for making your
Web site search-engines friendly and
accessible
12
Other Ways Of Dissemination
Users find your Web site by:
• Search engines
• Following a link
• Entering a URL which they found on a mouse mat,
pen, in an article, etc
Links to your Web site are valuable as they:
• Drive traffic to your Web site
• Improve ranking in citation-based search engines
such as AltaVista
Possible problems with links:
• “Link-spamming services” 
• Being in the “Web sites that suck” portal
• Resources needed to encourage linking
13
Encouraging Links
You can:
• Submit to directories (e.g. Yahoo!)
• Use directory (and search engine) submission
services
• Have clear entry points with static URLs for key
menu pages
• Think about who you want to link to you and why
they would do so
• Target them and think of motivation (e.g.
attractive small icon)
• Monitor trends in links (e.g. try
<http://www.linkpopularity.com/>)
14
Monitoring
You may find it useful to:
• Monitor the status of your Web site





Nos. of pages indexed.
Nos. of links to your Web site
Accessibility of your Web site
Compliance with standards
Downtime of the service
• Monitor trends
 Do the findings change over time / after dissemination
• Compare your findings with your peers
 Comparison with other projects
 Comparison with other institutions
 Comparison with other communities
15
Monitoring
Many evaluation tools and
Web services are available
(some for free)
See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/
workshops/pub-lib-2000/workshop/> for exercises from Auditing
and Evaluating Web Sites workshop (and new workshop next week)
16
Embedding Your Service
So you’ve now:
• Produced a high-quality Web site which is easily
found, well-linked and accessible
What Next?
• You may want institutions to install your service
• You may want institutions to install scripts which
integrate with your service
• You may want institutions to install software on
users’ desktop PCs
Your project may simply be a proof-of-concept, and you
aren’t too concerned about deployment. But what if your
project is so good that others want to deploy it?
17
Standards, Architectures,
Applications, Resources
Let’s agree on the standards and be agnostic on the applications used
to implement the standards, provided services are interoperable
Standards: concerned with
protocols and file formats
Open standards vs. Proprietary
HTML / XML vs. PDF
CSS / XSL vs. HTML
18
Architectures: models for
implementing systems
Which standards are applicable
NT / Unix
File system / database application
HTML tools / content management
Applications: software
products used to implement
systems
Resources: financial and staff
costs needed to implement
systems
Apache / IIS
FrontPage / Dreamweaver
Oracle / SQLServer / MySQL
ColdFusion vs ASP vs JSP
Development vs. Migration costs
Use of in-house expertise
In-house vs. out-sourced
Licensed vs. open source
Barriers to Embedding
In order to persuade institutions to deploy your service:
• You will have to convince the SysAdmin your
software:






19
Doesn’t have security holes
Won’t degrade the performance of the service
Won’t require updates to any system libraries
Won’t require any reconfiguration of server software
Will be maintained and is adequately documented
Is worth him (usually) spending his time on the work
• You may have to convince the IT Service’s
management
• You may need buy-in from the user of your service
(e.g. the Library)
How big a barrier do you
think this will be?
RDN-Include – A Case Study
Subject gateways (such as SOSIG & EEVL) are
successful but institutions:
• May feel they are taking users off-site
• May feel that they should be doing (or seen to
be doing) the job locally
• Feel that their users will be disoriented by
leaving the local look-and-feel (landscape)
RDN-Include was developed:
• To allow institutions to provide access to RDN
hubs using the institution’s own look-and-feel
and URL
20
Short paper on this work given at WWW 10. See
<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/www10/>
RDN-Include and RDNi-Lite
RDN-Include was developed:
• As a CGI script written in Perl
• Requires the institution to install the CGI
• Requires the RDN to update its tables
RDNi-Lite was developed:
• To provide a lightweight alternative to RDNi
• To allow the service to be tried and
implemented by an HTML author
• Implemented using JavaScript
• See <http://www.rdn.ac.uk/rdn-i/>
21
<script type="text/javascript" src=
"http://www.rdn.ac.uk/rdn-i/cgibin/rdnilite.cgi?tags=RDNTEXT,RDN
LIST&amp;template=http://www.mmu
.ac.uk/services/library/rdni/rdnitempla
te.html"></script>
22
It’s implemented using a
single line of JavaScript
News Feeds
Providing
automated
news feeds
which can be
included in
third party
Web site with
no manual
intervention is
a good way to
support
dissemination
23
Extension to News Feeds
The RDN:
• Wants to provide news feeds about developments
by RDN hubs
• It’s using the RSS standard for news feeds (and
XML/RDF application)
• A CGI-based RSS parser (and authoring tool) has
been created
• To allow potential users to try it out easily, a
JavaScript parser has also been written
• See <http://rssxpress.ukoln.ac.uk/>
24
Can this (slightly) heavyweight CGI solution
complemented by a lightweight JavaScript
solution be used within your project?
Mirroring and Preservation
Another way to embed your service remotely is
for it to be mirrored:
• Use of Web mirroring software to install service at
another location (e.g. overseas to overcome
network bandwidth problems or behind a firewall)
• Issues about whether you are mirroring output
from a service or the service itself (affected by
push vs pull mode of mirroring)
• JISC, for example, may wish to mirror your
service in order to preserve it (once funding runs
out and everyone leaves)
25
Note that you may wish to mirror only the project deliverables Web site,
and not the Web site for partners or the Web site about the project –
another reason for having separate Web sites
Benchmarking
You are responsible for designing architecture of your
Web site and monitoring its effectiveness
Certain things may be best done centrally:
• Ensuring compliance with contractual agreements
(Web site still exists, conforms with accessibility
guidelines, etc.)
• Benchmarks across programme in order to make
comparisons, spot best practices, identify where
advice & guidance is needed, etc.
• Not intended as league tables (projects will have
different funding levels, remits, communities,
levels of visibility, etc.)
Plans to produce a briefing document on “Web Portal Guidelines
For Programme Coordinators” for JISC (and EU?)
26
Words On Browser Support
The aim:
• Services would degrade gracefully for old
browsers
This has not happened 
My concern - Can I make assumptions about:
•
•
•
•
27
Frames & JavaScript support?
Support for CSS (stylesheets)
Browser plugins (eg Flash)?
…
Words On Browser Support
Possible solutions:
• Design for mid-1990s Web technologies
• Client-side (JavaScript) user-agent sniffing
• Server-side (e.g. PHP, JSP, ASP) user-agent
sniffing
• Design assuming support for current standards
Should JISC aim to define minimum browser standards? Note:
• Design of richly functional, accessible services using flawed 1990s
applications is difficult
• Pre 4.7 versions of Netscape are no longer supported (security concerns
– see <http://home.netscape.com/cms/certinfo.html>)
• Netscape moving out of browser market? See
<http://browserwatch.internet.com/news/stories2001/
news-20010606-1.html>
28
Conclusions
To conclude:
• Make plans for the architecture of your Web
service (URL naming, mirrorability,
dissemination, etc.) at the start
• Monitor aspects of your Web service
• Design your service so that it can be embedded
in other institutions (which will have different
cultures, resource levels and priorities to your
own)
• Don’t forget the people issues (liaison, listening,
etc.) not covered in this talk
29