CUL Staff Web Site

Task Force Members:

• Michael Engle
• Jim LeBlanc (chair)
• Will Sayers
• Leah Solla
• Sarah Young

Charge

On 30 March 1999, a StaffWeb Committee was created to make recommendations about the future development, content, and maintenance of the StaffWeb. The charge to the committee included a definition of the purpose of the StaffWeb. On 22 June 1999, the committee distributed an Interim Report (available at http://www.library.cornell.edu/staffweb/SWIntRep.html) that identified options for responding to the original committee charge. No final report was ever produced, so that a number of the issues and procedures relating to the StaffWeb remain unresolved.

Please complete the work of the 1999 StaffWeb Committee. Based upon the information in the Interim Report, some of which will need to be updated, please write a final report that responds to the original 30 March 1999 charge. In addition, please consider especially:

• Purpose: Is the purpose defined in the original charge adequate, or does that statement of purpose need to be refined or expanded?
• Design: How can the StaffWeb be more effectively organized and presented?
• Governance: Who should decide what material is included on the StaffWeb?
• Division of responsibilities: Who should do the work to prepare material for loading on the StaffWeb?

Please include in your report a recommendation as to who might do the work to revise the StaffWeb in the ways you are suggesting. [In addition, the Library Management Team (LMT) asked the Task Force to recommend a means for restricting read access to certain documents on StaffWeb. This request was relayed to the group after the initial charge was issued].

Approach

Using the 1999 Interim Report of the StaffWeb Committee as a point of departure, the Task Force reviewed the current contents and organization of StaffWeb. In addition, we solicited input from such systemwide functional groups as IRPC and the Working Group on Cataloging (WGC) regarding how they use StaffWeb, what they like about it, and what they don't like about it. Most significantly, we posted a brief survey to CU-LIB (see Appendix), which elicited a surprising number of responses (42) from staff at all levels in all functioning areas of CUL. We also spoke to a representative from Library Human Resources (Linda Bryan), to Nan Hyland regarding the reorganization of the Library Gateway Help pages, and to information technology staff from both CTS and Mann Library regarding security issues.

We've crafted our recommendation based on that input.

Findings

Of significance to our charge are the following:

• Some staff do not know what StaffWeb is.
• Most of those who do know what it is, find it useful overall.
• Virtually all categories of material currently available on StaffWeb are used by some segment of the CUL community.
• Many find StaffWeb difficult to navigate; some of the labels on the top-level buttons and links are ambiguous (e.g., "Units" and the "Committees" button vs. the "Library Committees and Policy Groups" link).
• Although many directories and committee folders are kept current, others are not.
• The site is incomplete in some areas (e.g., not all committees and functional groups are represented).
• Some groups (e.g., the Committee on Professional Development) feel it would be useful to provide them with write access to a folder or folders within StaffWeb so that they may add to and maintain their own documents, especially those that are frequently updated.
• Although most of the information on StaffWeb should be freely accessible, there is a need to restrict read access to some documents useful to CUL staff, but not appropriate for general access (e.g., the annual Economic Status Committee reports, proprietary information from Endeavor).
• A search engine would be helpful, especially for archived documents.

Discussion

1. Purpose

   Given the input we received, we decided to update the statement of purpose for StaffWeb as follows:

   The purpose of the StaffWeb page is to provide easy access to information that will assist CUL staff in fulfilling their work responsibilities and in professional development. StaffWeb addresses this need in three ways: (1) by providing direct access to certain local reports, policies, and procedures; (2) by providing server space for these documents when appropriate; and (3) by serving as a portal to information residing on other Web sites. Its contents include such document-types as: special and ongoing library committee reports, CUL policies, departmental information, newsletters, statistics, directories, and training and workshop announcements. StaffWeb also serves as an archive for these documents.

2. Design

   There seems to be no need to change the overall look and feel of the StaffWeb site, though there is definitely a need for reorganizing the top level links and the contents of these categories to facilitate navigation, eliminate ambiguity, and improve the overall usefulness of the site. The implementation of multiple navigation tools would improve usability for a broader audience. These tools could include: a well-maintained site map, consistent organization of the entries (perhaps based on a card sort technique¹), mouse-over definitions and periodic monitoring of the hierarchies.

   It is also clear that we need to expand the scope of StaffWeb to ensure that all information one would reasonably expect to find at the site is available and up-to-date. For example, the "Committees" links (currently there are two) should retrieve information on all library committees, not just some of them. The site would also benefit from more uniformity in the presentation and contents of documents, as well as more information about the index links themselves (e.g., summary information on the top page of a given folder, or even a mouse-over function on the StaffWeb home page). The need for uniformity will become crucial, if and when we implement a search engine for use with all or part of the site.

   We should stress to CUL staff that they are both users of, and stake holders in, StaffWeb, and that the usefulness of the site is in many ways dependent on their own willingness to contribute to its growth and upkeep. To this end, it would be helpful to provide guidelines, including templates, with links from the home page, and to provide opportunities for consultation and training in the use of these instructions.

   A feedback form for comments, suggestions and additions to the site, with a link at the top level, would be a welcome and easy-to-create addition to the site. In addition, a link to the StaffWeb "Statement of Purpose" (see Section A above) would also be beneficial and easy to add.

   Archived documents should be made easier to find, perhaps through double links from both the home page (e.g., an "Archives" button or entry) and individual sections. Ideally, these and more current documents should be accessible via a search engine, but the building of such a search feature would be a major undertaking and would not be appropriate for short-term reorganization purposes. It would require the embedding of metadata retrospectively into existing documents and determining a way to search material and sites mounted on other CUL and non-CUL servers. We should, however, consider the addition of such a feature as a medium-or longer-term goal.

3. Process and Governance

   It is clear that the development and maintenance of StaffWeb, along the lines proposed above, is a task that pushes the limits of the current arrangement, in which the current keepers of the site (Jim LeBlanc and backup Sarah Young, along with some help from CTS technical services support unit (DBQE)) mount and update documents on the fly. The original StaffWeb Committee, in fact, foresaw this limitation:

   Continued exclusive reliance on DBQE resources may unnecessarily limit the possibilities for growth of StaffWeb or make timely response to staff needs difficult. It is also not explicitly part of the DBQE charge and resides there primarily because of the initiative taken several years ago when the need became apparent. Without administrative sources of support for ongoing maintenance, the burden may be less bearable over time for a small unit like DBQE.²

   More appropriate at this point would be some sort of StaffWeb team that would:

   • Implement the organizational and design modifications recommended by this Task Force, including the capacity to limit access to certain documents (see Section D below).
   • Direct the maintenance, updating and development of the site on an ongoing basis, as well as plan for future enhancements (e.g., a search engine).
   • Have at its disposal the resources to accomplish these tasks.

4. Security

   In its Interim Report, the StaffWeb Committee recommended against restricting access to StaffWeb, but it has become clear that secure access to some documents is in order. The Task Force looked into various means of providing this security, including:

   • "Basic authorization" with user ID and password -- The most compelling argument against this method is that everyone hates it. We would all be required to learn still another password, would occasionally forget it, and some folks would be bound to pass it on to unauthorized users. A high maintenance method.
   • IP address checking -- As the original StaffWeb Committee pointed out, this is not a very "flexible or discriminating option" and using the proxy server for off-campus access wouldn't be all that easy. The proxy server needs to know which CU staff have access to which target addresses, as well as who is legitimate and who isn't, and Mann IT's experience with the proxy server is that it's a pain. However, they do have a somewhat out-of-date Gateway IP checking package they'd be willing to share with us, if we decide to pursue this course.
   • Kerberos authentication -- According to Mann IT staff, this is the easiest method available at the moment, as long as access to secure areas of StaffWeb is restricted to the Cornell community as a whole. Restricting access to CUL staff would be considerably more difficult, however. This approach would involve the authentication of StaffWeb users of secure documents via their NET ID and password. Mann IT already has a script for invoking Kerberos authentication from the CIT server that they wrote for MyLibrary and that they'd be willing to share with us. They'd give us a copy to put in the StaffWeb folder, which we could then invoke via standardized text in those documents we decide to restrict. We'd also need to install FrontCar on the StaffWeb server (if it's not there already), though this is apparently a relatively simple task for a library techie. Thus, the cost of installing and maintaining such a security system would be minimal.
   • CUWebAuth -- This is brand new software. It is free and supported by CIT. CUWebAuth allows for customization of access restrictions within a Web document. It could use the existing MS Access database of library staff maintained by Library Human Resources as a basis for allowing or denying access to the restricted directories. An interface between LDAP (the directory software currently used by CIT) and PeopleSoft, in development over the next year, will allow even more timely and streamlined updating of the Library's Access database. CIT estimates that it would take 1-5 days of staff time to install CUWebAuth, depending on the Web and technological skills of the staff member doing the installation. Someone with a programming background would be best, but not necessary.
   • Adam Chandler, CTS IT Librarian, introduced us to a software package called "Zope," a framework for building Web applications. Zope lives on its own server, comes with a built-in search engine for internal files, is easy to learn, and is free. Security can be applied at the folder level via IP address checking. However, it is not clear whether Kerberos authentication can be used in conjunction with Zope and, at this point, we feel that it would be wiser to go with a framework that is already in place.

Recommendation

1. Create a StaffWeb Advisory Group to assess future needs and opportunities, assure development, approve content, direct ongoing maintenance, and (initially) to implement the changes and enhancements to StaffWeb recommended in this report. Ideally, this group would consist of:
   • A representative from the Library Administration Office, who would chair the group and serve as its primary contact person for requests to add new material to the site and for questions regarding the mechanics of preparing those materials, consultation, and training, etc.;
   • Another staff member from that office who would be responsible for data entry and markup -- in other words, the actual work involved in adding to, and maintaining, the site;
   • Three advisory members who would serve rotating two-year terms. These members would be drawn from various functional areas of CUL and would represent a mix of academic and non-academic staff;
   • Two other members who would serve ex-officio and be consulted as needed: one from a CUL systems unit (or at least with adequate systems background for the purposes of the group) and one from the Academic Assembly Steering Committee.

   These members would be appointed by LMT -- with the exception of the ex-officio representative from Academic Assembly, who would be chosen by that group.

   Initially, the work of the Advisory Group would be fairly intensive, until the changes and enhancements proposed in this report have been implemented. Thereafter, it is likely that the group would need to meet only occasionally, perhaps as infrequently as every 6 months to review the overall design, direction, and content of the site -- with the exception of that member who is responsible for ongoing data entry, editing, and maintenance. We estimate that this "committed" staff member would need to allocate roughly 10% of his/her time to ongoing work on the site.

2. Add a statement of purpose, a feedback form, and instructions for submitting material to StaffWeb (including templates for new documents) to the site, with prominent links from the home page. Staff should be encouraged to follow these instructions and use the templates to prepare documents themselves for easy mounting on, and linking to, the StaffWeb site. The Advisory Group should be ready to provide support (consultation, training, etc.) for the use of these guidelines. In addition, groups and committees who desire it should be given write access to certain folders on the server itself, so that they may update their own documents. This is especially recommended for sites that are particularly dynamic and are updated frequently (e.g., the current home page for the Committee on Professional Development). In other words, when deemed appropriate by the StaffWeb Advisory Group, these groups should be provided with server space and access to prescribed folders on the StaffWeb server. The Advisory Group will need to work in conjunction with the system administrator for the StaffWeb server (currently Surinder Ghangas) on this issue.

3. Reorganize the top level links and overall layout of the site's contents (including archived documents) to improve navigation, eliminate ambiguity, and enhance the overall usefulness of StaffWeb. Review the current contents of the site to ensure that they are up-to-date and reasonably complete. Although this initial reorganization and review of the site would require a moderate investment of staff time, it would pay off in the long run in a Web site that is easier to use, more informative to staff, and more up-to-date -- not to mention the decreased cost of maintaining a site that has been recently cleaned up.

4. Publicize the revitalized StaffWeb site, especially to newer staff members. Information regarding the existence and scope of StaffWeb should be included in the orientation package that is presented to new CUL employees.

5. Create areas within StaffWeb accessible to CUL staff only. We recommend the use of CUWebAuth software, available from (and supported by) CIT, for this purpose. Write access to secure folders on the StaffWeb server would be restricted to members of the StaffWeb Advisory Group and, when applicable, to those groups who prepare and contribute the restricted material.

6. Investigate the possibility of implementing a search engine for the site. Given the current charge, the Task Force does not feel that this is feasible in the short-term; however, the group recognizes that it will become more and more difficult to retrieve certain bits of information from StaffWeb, especially from the archives, as the contents of the site grow. To this end, the Advisory Group should consider investigating the immediate addition of metadata to existing documents and including the embedding of metadata in the guidelines for submission of new materials for StaffWeb. Further, it needs to determine how a comprehensive search engine can be built to serve the current staff Web site, considering that the site's contents are not all on the StaffWeb server.

APPENDIX: StaffWeb Feedback

CUL Staff Web Site

Created 12/16/02, vwb
Updated 12/17/02, jdl