Re: Web site specificity: opinions? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharon![]() |
|
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:03:34 -0800 (PST) |
On 1 Feb 2012, at 2:28 PM, Greg Nelson wrote: > There has been a perennial debate in our community. Drawn in the most > extreme terms: some want a minimal web site which just gives people > contact information and gets them to talk to us in person; others want > a maximal web site with pages about everything anyone could ever want > to know about us. One of the difficulties with where you are now is that you have no experience to ground the beliefs about websites. In time opposites like this work themselves out. I suspect this is a fear of being too open and scaring people off. People believe that personal contact is persuasive and written information is impersonal and confusing. One factor to consider is if you have a member who is willing and able to update the site on a regular basis. If not, it can be expensive to keep up a website. If you choose a technology like Wordpress or Google Sites many people can learn the skills to keep it up to date. Google Sites has less flexibility but anyone can enter information. Wordpress is infinitely expandable and serve you well when you get to the point of needing to store documents. We are almost 12 years from move-in and finding the document dispersion a huge mess, literally. We have years of different people keeping records in different places or in different ways. The Facilities Team discovered that new member (very experienced professionals, however) were filing documents by the name of the vendor, Dynatemp, while the previous members had been filing them by subject, HVAC. We stored documents in YahooGroups since the first meeting only to have all the attachments stripped a few years ago. Anything not pasted into a message is gone. One person set a new list for a team and deleted the old one. History gone. A comprehensive website avoids this problem, but you need members to maintain it. > We have brought up a new web site for our community that everyone > agrees looks lovely, but it moves toward the minimal in content. I commend you on the website. It is beautiful and very simple. No visually busy stuff. But as it grows, it doesn't have to be more complicated. Everything doesn't need to be on the front page. > she > wouldn't have even bothered contacting us if she didn't already have > some information about our policies. (Hearing this, two other > prospective members jumped in and agreed.) I think this is typical of many cohousers who are capable of developing a real estate project, conceptualizing an ecologically sustainable environment, building a workable financial structure, and confronting the reality of many opinions in one place. Information tells this kind of person that you have thought about these issues. These are the people you need to build your community. They think critically, look before they leap, understand the hazards of dreams. It can't all be done by those who enjoy schmoozing and are good at it. You need both. The schmoozers are unlikely to read the website beyond the first social event. Put that upfront with nice pictures so they can stop there. Put the other stuff deeper. > Keeping more information on > the web makes it harder to maintain (as policies or other information > changes) and potentially makes the site harder to navigate, less > streamlined, less "pretty", etc. It doesn't have to be more complex. Think in terms of moving toward more detailed. Broad categories toward more detailed. You might also set up categories in terms of your team structure so the website reflects your organizational structure. Then when people read the website and transition to understanding your governance, it will be familiar. And the reverse. When members go back to read the website, they will be able to navigate because the structure is the same. Maintaining does require updating but think about the alternative. As I explained above, if you don't put it on the website — your own, not Yahoo's or Google's — where is it? As you grow, making updated information available in any way other than a website is even more difficult. Where do all those paper copies go? And how can members be sure they have the most updated copy? Reminding people that we already have a policy is now necessary because they have forgotten five years ago helping to write it. When you evaluate the pros and cons, don't leave out the pros and cons of your other alternatives. Sharon ---- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
-
Web site specificity: opinions? Greg Nelson, February 1 2012
- Re: Web site specificity: opinions? Sharon Villines, February 2 2012
-
Re: Web site specificity: opinions? Caity McCardell, February 2 2012
- Looking for Change [ was Web site specificity: opinions? Sharon Villines, February 2 2012
- Re: Web site specificity: opinions? Doug Chamberlin, February 2 2012
- Re: Web site specificity: opinions? Wayne Tyson, February 2 2012
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.