[Sigia-l] General access versus members-only sites

[Andrew Boyd]

Hi Anthony,

I've worked (and continue to work on) projects where there are different 
patterns of information dissemination based on access levels and need. 
Over the years I've found it easier to admit defeat on successfully 
maintaining a bunch of sites sharing the same information manually and 
have gone to recommending and using CMS. Used properly (by constant 
application of sound design principles), they work to serve different 
levels of the same information to a range of users. My 5 seconds worth 
of free advice would be:
- don't forget St. Ranganathan's facets - beware of 
organisational-hierarchy-as-God organic structure bases,
- do thorough user/task analysis so you know exactly what you've 
supposed to be providing to the target audience members, and
- design an interface that is similar enough not to break branding but 
different enough that users know which site they are in.

One project I worked on produced a CMS that disseminated appropriate 
information across 6 different-but-linked intranets, dependant on user 
security access and particular need. It is quite doable.

Cheers, Andrew

Anthony Hempell wrote:

>Hi - 
>
>I'm working on the beginning stages of a project for a large
>service-provider company. In our pitch and creative process we came up
>with idea of having a dedicated site that was for members only - not
>just a "members" section or a username/password like on Amazon, but a
>separate URL that would marketed specifically to members.  There would
>still be the existing URL for a general-purpose web site that would be
>aimed at new/potential members and the general public.
>
>Although I haven't started the design process yet, I'm already having
>some concerns about how to divide up the content of the two sites. 
>
>Specifically:
>
>- how to manage content that would be of use to both sites; 
>
>- strategies and tactics for making the general / member site concept
>clear to users who may be confused which is which;  
>
>- any evidence that this is or isn't a good idea, specifically with the
>additional time involved to create and manage two sites instead of one.
>
>Offhand I can't think of another example of this high-level architecture
>(other than banking sites, which often have a dedicated URL for their
>online banking applications... not an exact parallel, but a similar
>idea) and was wondering if others had either seen this setup in action
>or have had experience in designing two complimentary sites like this.
>
>Thanks
>Anthony
>
>------------
>When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
>*Plain text, please; NO Attachments
>
>Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
>________________________________________
>Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
>Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
>
>  
>


-- 
_________________________________________
Andrew Boyd 
Business Development Manager
Daily Basis P/L
Phone 02 6282 9797 or 02 4885 1357
Mobile 0412 641 074
Email andrew at dailybasis.com.au
or andrew_db at bigpond.com
_________________________________________