1704 Home   Story Menu   Meet the 5 Cultures   People   Artifacts   Maps   Timeline   Voices & Songs   Explanations  


  • About This Site : Getting Started | Contact | About This Project | How To | Honors | Credits | Tech Info

    How To Make a Site Like This

    Managing the 1704 Website Project
    Design and Production

    Managing the 1704 Website Project

    Page Contents:
    Introduction | Planning and Defining the Website | Building the Website | Publicizing the Website | Evaluating the Website


    Project management is the glue that makes everything work together. It's the imposition of order on an otherwise chaotic mishmash of tasks that must be accomplished. It answers these questions: What are we doing? Why are we doing it? How are we going to do it? Who is going to do it? When are we doing it? How will we know when we've done it? How will we know if it's any good? On any project, one mind needs to be able to hold everything and see the big picture. How is that accomplished?

    The project manager should have experience managing large, multi-faceted projects—preferably online projects (websites, computer-based training, distance learning, etc.). She should have experience talking in the language of online design and development so she speaks the same language as the designer and programmer. She should be familiar with the issues that arise in the area of website content: finding good writers, choosing between a good writer and a subject matter expert, the writing and revision process, the implementation process—getting writing online, reviewed, and revised. She should understand enough of the technology behind the website to be able to grasp the development process, especially when estimating resources—people, time, money. She should be a good communicator, a consensus-builder, and a cheerleader.

    We managed the 1704 website project by dividing it into five phases, developing processes for each phase, and then checking to make sure that those processes were followed.

    • Planning and Defining the Website
    • Designing the Website
    • Building the Website
    • Publicizing the Website
    • Evaluating the Website

    Planning and Defining the Website

    If you have written a proposal (see IMLS Proposal, 154K pdf file) and received grant money for your project, you have most likely completed some of your project's planning tasks, at least at a high level. Hopefully, at the very least, you have determined the goals of the project and some ideas of how you are going to accomplish those goals in terms of resources, general timeline, and budget. A key additional task during the planning stage involves preparation for the design and development, or building, phase.

    This preparation include the following tasks:

    • Clarification of audience
    • Formulation of detailed objectives and outcomes
    • Determination of policies
    • Detailed outline of development tasks (including a timeline and schedule with milestones)
    • Outline of content and formulation of a writing and review process
    • Definition of responsibilities based on a compilation of resources
    • Development of processes (for example, design and development, writing, reviewing, revision, getting content online, etc., and standardization of those processes in the form of a Standards Manual or Writing Guidelines (see Writing Guidelines, 33K html file)
    • Formulation of an evaluation process
    • Determination of the technology necessary to accomplish the goals of the project
    • A process for keeping track of everything

    Often, this phase results in a Project Plan which describes the design, development, and evaluation activities. Or, if your proposal was detailed enough, you may spend a planning stage fine-tuning what was in your proposal.

    We were fortunate to be granted an NEH Planning Grant which allowed us a six-month planning process. During these six months, we were able to bring many of the players from the different cultures to the museum to meet face-to-face and hammer out key content and design issues. It was during one of these meetings that we realized we needed a tab approach to the multiple perspectives of the site, thus allowing each culture to tell its own story.

    Building the Website

    In the development phase, the team moves into the actual building of the website. It is helpful if the planning phase includes time to develop a number of processes that occur concurrently during the development phase. These processes include communication among members of the project team; the research, writing, review and revision process for content (both text and illustration) creation; implementation—or, getting the content into the website; and formative evaluation—a process for reviewing the online content and making sure it is correct and "works"—both in terms of its accuracy and its functionality.

    Communication was a challenge: at various points in the four-year-long project, over 60 people worked part-time on the website, at one point or another, and most of them were scattered geographically. Only the project manager and one part-time historian were resident at the museum. As a result, we held very few in-person meetings. Most of our communication occurred via phone and email and postings to a team website (see screen shot of Team website below). The project manager compiled task lists (see Scene Schedule, 59K pdf file), (at a later point in time these task lists were replaced by Trackers—see screen shot of Scene Tracker below, and described in greater detail in the Technology section); monitored progress and issued regular status reports; and compiled a Standards Manual that recorded decisions made by the team. Only a few meetings were held at the museum.

    screen shot of Team Website home page
    Team Website Home Page.

    screen shot of the Scene Tracker from Team Website
    Scene Tracker from Team Website

    Content Development
    Content development began in the design phase with a basic categorization of the major kinds of content that we would include. In our case, the kinds of content we created were historical scenes written in a tabbed format, character narratives, labels for artifacts, a voices & songs section, a glossary, brief descriptions of maps, essays, timeline content, and a Teachers' Guide. We listed the content for each category and then developed an outline for the longer pieces. The tasks of identifying, outlining, and writing the content occurred simultaneously. For example, while we were outlining one historical scene, we were busy writing and reviewing and revising another, and putting yet another online. At the same time, we were outlining one character narrative, writing and reviewing and revising another, and putting another online. In some instances, we had more than one writer working on one category of content at a time. We used Trackers to keep track of each of the content areas.

    We hired a variety of writers. Our two historians took on a small part of the writing, but their time was mostly allocated to outlining the content and reviewing other writers' work. Several scholars wrote essays for the website. We hired a writer to write many of the character narratives; we also hired three native scholars for to write narratives of Native people's lives. We hired a material culture expert to track down and write labels for artifacts. The project manager wrote some text and served as an overall editor for most of the content. All text content was reviewed extensively for accuracy and writing style.

    Review and Revision
    We developed a rigorous content review process that spelled out in great detail the steps writers and reviewers had to follow to produce a piece of writing, ready to be put online. For example, for tabbed content, one of our historians filled in a template for each scene's content, (see Content Outline Template, 166K pdf file) the content of which was reviewed by each culture's reviewers. Reviewers were contacted during the planning phase and sent letters (see Advisors' Letter, 47K pdf file) explaining how they should review and give feedback, and how they would be paid. Reviewers from each culture were told that they had to agree among themselves on the changes requested, so that the museum was not in the position of having to mediate among the various voices within each culture. The historian revised the outline based on the feedback and submitted the outline to the writer.

    The writer did research (if necessary) based on the outline, then submitted a draft of the various tabbed perspectives for the historical scene she was writing; at most, there were six tabs—the introduction tab and a tab for each of the five cultures. Advisors for each culture, plus a group of scholars, reviewed the content and submitted revisions. The writer and historian reviewed the feedback, and the writer—in consultation with the historian—made the necessary changes. The advisors and scholars reviewed the revised text. All of this review (including directions for how to review and give feedback (see Reviewer Directions, 4K html file) took place on the team website, with feedback sent to the project manager who distributed it to the writer and historian. When the content was deemed ready for implementation, the project manager sent it to the implementor—a college student who worked at a fairly low rate, compared to the programmers of the website. Other pieces of content, including illustrations, were treated in a similar manner. We followed this iterative process for approximately two years.

    Once a piece of content was ready to be put online, our historian readied the file to be sent to the implementor by doing the following:

    • Checking proper format, including heads and subhead, footnotes, and further reading in the case of essays and character narratives
    • Adding glossary term definitions if the writer had not previously done so
    • In the case of essays, character narratives and some historic scenes, determining the illustrations that would accompany the piece, their location, their captions, and a link from the caption to an artifact label if the illustration illustrated a website artifact

    Once the implementor added the content to the development site (See the Technology section of "How To" to learn how we did this.), the historian and writer reviewed the content and made any necessary changes before the project manager sent an email to the reviewers to review the content online. We instructed reviewers to send feedback to the project manager who, in turn, passed it on to the historian and writer for revisions if necessary. Final changes to the online material were made by the historian, the writer, or the implementor.

    Standards Manual
    A Standards Manual is a written expression of standards that are agreed upon conventions, subject to review, that guide you in developing a website. It should be flexible and serve as a model, or guide, that writers, designers, developers, and programmers can follow in spirit, if not in fact. The content of a Standards Manual should be subject to review and not cast in stone, changing to accommodate new understandings and different project needs. It should be added to, reviewed, evaluated, and changed if necessary, in an ongoing effort to make it current and helpful. The Standards Manual should be a working model and evolving document.

    Why is it helpful to have a Standards Manual? Developing and writing down standards does the following:

    • Saves us from having to reinvent the wheel each time we add content to the website
    • Saves us from having to decide what style and conventions to use, remember them, and undo costly errors that result from misunderstanding, or inaccurately remembering them
    • Makes everyone feel a part of the process
    • Allows us all to benefit from the combined wisdom of everyone’s experience
    • Helps website visitors learn by providing clarity and consistency, enhancing aesthetics, increasing interactivity and learner control, making content educationally sound and internally consistent
    • Makes the content of a website look like it was written by one person

    Our Standards Manual (see Writing Guidelines, 33K html file) includes the following sections:

    • "How to write" topics for the various types of writing that appear on the website (for example, tabs, character narratives, artifact descriptions, rollovers, etc.)
    • Using templates
    • Writing style: capitalization, spelling, terminology
    • MS Word document guide
    • XML document guide

    Publicizing the Website

    Publicity was an important part of our project plan both because we wanted to make sure that people visited our website and because one of our grants was a National Leadership Grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services. We were charged with the task of disseminating our website as a model for other institutions. Our detailed publicity plan developed over time; it began in the planning phase and in the proposals we wrote, and continued into the design and development phase in the form of a series of meetings with the marketing committee. These are the primary activities we set in motion to publicize the 1704 website. Each activity involved planning, task lists, the allocation of staff time, possible budget considerations (especially in terms of the design), development and distribution of postcards and bookmarks, and an informal assessment of its effectiveness:

    • Pre-site: Before the site was launched, we added a "pre-site" that provided a preview and description of what the site would be. We linked to this "pre-site" from the museum's existing website.
    • Video preview and press release: We developed and disseminated a four-minute video tape and press release about the website to key media outlets.
    • Promotion at museum events: We advertised the website to over 60,000 people at six different Old Deerfield Craft Fairs, (see Craft Fair website) sponsored by PVMA.
    • Radio and TV: We disseminated promotional materials to radio and television stations in the weeks leading up the launch.
    • Related events in other media: WFCR (PBS affiliate) aired a raid series "Captive Lands, Captive Hearts," (see Captive Lands, Captive Hearts) in the week leading up to the launch; this series has now been incorporated into the website. Additionally, we sponsored eight performances of the opera, the Captivation of Eunice, presented during a second commemoration weekend in Deerfield in July of 2004.
    • Bookmarks: We sent out 50,000 bookmark to libraries and school libraries, state-wide.
    • Website announcement postcards: We mailed 14,598 postcards announcing the website to regional subscribers to Smithsonian Magazine, and 5,000 post cards to PVMA members and museum mailing lists. We distributed thousands of postcards at conferences.
    • Website "How To" postcards: Because we received a National Leadership grant, we announced that the technology behind the website would be free to non-profits by mailing 11,000 postcards to mailing lists from the New England Museum Association (NEMA), the American Association of State and Local History (AASLH), and the American Museum Association (AAM).
    • Related exhibit: We attended planning meetings for a joint exhibit with Historic Deerfield, Inc.
    • Town meetings: We attended several town meetings with Historic Deerfield, Inc. to plan for the 300th anniversary commemorative events.
    • Official launch ceremony: We launched the website to a standing-room-only crowd during February, 2004, and again in July of 2004. An estimated 3,000 people visited Deerfield at launch.
    • Conferences: Staff delivered presentations at conferences.
    • Awards: The website won Honorable Mention in the Best Online Exhibition category at the Museums & the Web Conference in Vancouver, Canada, in April 2005 (see Museum & The Web Awards page); it won a National Award of Merit from AASLH in July of 2005.
    • Published articles: The project manager and designer authored five online articles about the website: for example, Telling an Old Story in a New Way: Raid on Deerfield in eLearn Magazine (see article) and Digital Deerfield 1704: A New Perspective on the French and Indian War, (see article) in First Monday, an internet peer-reviewed journal.
    • Consultations: The project manager and designer consulted with other museums/libraries interested in learning more about our process and website development.
    • Presentations at local educational groups: The project manager and museum staff delivered many workshops about the website to teachers and students.

    Evaluating the Website

    As indicated in the evaluation section (see Evaluation Plan, 46K pdf file) of our proposal, we divided our evaluation activities into two phases: formative evaluation, which tells us how we can make the website better based on user feedback, and summative evaluation, which tells us if the goals of the website are being met.

    How Can We Make the Website Better?
    The formative evaluation answered the question "How can we make the website look and work better?" and took place at two key points (pre-public premier: September–February 03; post public premiere: April 03–March 05). It was primarily qualitative in nature. We gathered information from observation, interviews, formal focus groups, and questionnaires (see Questionnaire, 45K pdf file). This data allowed us to perform an interface design analysis and, in turn, inform the design and development of the website so that it was constantly refined and fine-tuned to better accomplish its objectives. During this phase we gathered data to answer questions in the following areas: 1) Use - Who is using the site and why?; 2) Usability - Is the user interface easy to navigate? Does the user get lost?; 3) Content and Clarity - Are story lines and terminology clear?; 4) Content Accuracy - Is the content accurate - determined through advisor reviews); 5) Effectiveness of Content and Presentation - What did you learn that you did not already know? How would you improve the website?.

    In all cases, we tried to select a cross-section of users who represented differences in sex, age, geographical location, race, ethnicity, religion, and socio-economic background. For example, college classrooms offer racial, geographic, ethnic, religious and cultural diversity among men and women students. Local libraries and craft fairs provide participants with ethnic, cultural, religious, socio-economic and age differences among men and women.

    In April of 2005, we volunteered our website for a "Crit Session" at the Museums & the Web Conference in Vancouver, Canada. Volunteer judges from other museums evaluated the website primarily in terms of ease of use. This feedback from colleagues proved extremely helpful, since these professionals are both exposed to many similar site issues and have given a lot of thought to the same kinds of challenges that we encountered.

    Is the Website Meeting Its Goals?
    The project manager began summative evaluation in early spring of this 2005, with plans to complete it by the end of September, 2005. The evaluation employed both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess the degree to which the website project achieved its goals:

    1. Has the website reached a large and diverse audience?
    2. Does the website increase users' knowledge of the event?
    3. Does the website contribute to a greater awareness of, understanding of, and/or appreciation for, the various perspectives that define the historical event?
    4. Is the website successful in helping other institutions develop their own multi-perspective website?

    Quantitative Methodology: We gathered web server statistics to measure how the site was being used—for example, the number of "hits" to the website, most frequently "hit" pages, number of searches and search targets, pages bookmarked, and length of time on the website. Our programmer developed a way to track clicks within a Flash presentation in order to evaluate the extent to which users actually explore multiple perspectives. We also developed an online survey and an online game (developed using Flash) that can yield additional information about respondents' understanding of the multiple perspectives in the website.

    Website statistics:
    We gathered website statistics (see Website Stats, 61K pdf file) using the software program Webtrends. And although you can gain a great deal of detail about traffic on a site using this tool, so far, we have graphed only the following information: number of hits, pages views, visitor sessions, and unique visitors. Hits have relatively little meaning since a hit is tallied for each file of graphics on each page. But number of pages viewed has meaning since it is just that—whole pages being viewed. The pages viewed number is much greater than visitor session since most visitors view more than one page in a session. Likewise, there are more visitor sessions than unique visitors since a given visitor may come to the site a number of times.

    We can see that when the website launched, we had a great number of page views and visitor sessions; then the numbers dropped off, decreasing from 56,603 and 15,253 respectively, to 18,010 and 6,772. The numbers gradually grew from there, tapering off during the summer when teachers and students are not using the website. Again, in the fall of '04, the numbers rose sharply, coinciding with the opening of school, and then fell off again during the holidays. In 2005, we can see that the numbers took a huge jump in February and March, most likely due to the increase in conference activity, continued publicity around the 1704 commemoration weekend, online articles about the website, and strong continued use by the educational community.

    Preliminary online perspectives tally:
    Periodically, we look at the visits to each of the historic scenes and determine which cultural tabs are visited for each scene. For example, these are the visitation numbers for the Attack scene tabs during a four month time period in the spring of 2005: Intro-1,126; English-290; French-257; Kanienkehaka-251; Wendat-222; Wobanakiak-206. We are able to say that 166 visitors viewed all five cultural perspectives. This is somewhat disappointing until one realizes that these hits include visitors who came to the scene and then decided they did not want to be there. It is also true that some people who visited the English tab did not visit the other tabs. This general pattern of people visiting all the tabs in roughly the same numbers generally holds true for the historical scenes that have more than one perspective.

    Online survey quantitative data:
    All categories were judged on a 7-point scale, with 1 indicating the positive extreme and 7 indicating the negative extreme; for example, ease of finding information was judged 2.3 on a 7-point scale with 1 indicating very easy and 7 indicating very difficult. Here are results during a four-month timeframe in the spring of 2005:

    • Encounter with technical problems - 2.16
    • Clarity of writing style - 1.7
    • Trust in the information presented - 1.76
    • Pleasure in the look and feel of the site - 1.56
    • Ease of navigation - 1.8
    • Knowledge of the raid before visiting the website - 4.56
    • Knowledge of the raid after visiting the website - 2.56
    • Awareness of different points of view before visiting the website - 5.17
    • Awareness of different points of view after visiting the website - 2.65
    • Extent to which the website caused respondents to change their mind about something - 4.78
    • Fully 38 % of respondents said that they felt more strongly about something after visiting the website.

    Qualitative Methodology: Qualitative methods of data collection include online survey questions, questionnaires filled out by teachers and students, an online game, unsolicited email feedback, and informal comments at conferences and workshops.

    Online survey questions:
    These questions indicate that most respondents came to the website either through school assignments, a research need, or because someone told them about it. Most problems encountered related to slow Internet speed or links not working. When asked the single most important thing that they will remember about the website, the most common responses indicated the multiple perspectives (and non-judgmental nature of the site), the informative content (reasons for the raid, personal stories, struggles, houseplans), and the graphics and illustrations. There was no aspect of the website that stood out as being least liked, although respondents did mention slow speed, links not working, and the need for current information about Deerfield. Suggestions for making the website better included adding character narratives, adding a "graphics-lite" version for people who don't have fast connections, adding a search function, adding more content, and making maps bigger.

    Other questions on the survey yielded information like the following:

    When asked what they learned from the website, we can see that some stereotypes were erased, as indicated by this comment:

    "I did not know that there were French people with the Indians in the raid. I had only heard the 'savage' Indians had attacked."

    Two additional questions designed to elicit information about respondent's sensitivity to other perspectives yielded these four comments:

    "I am more sensitive to others views."

    "I feel more strongly about "injustice."

    "It is foolish to look at any historical event from one perspective. Great website. We're a Museum Studies class in New Mexico."

    "Because I've learned things that I did not know."

    Email feedback:
    Feedback responses through the website have been many and varied. They range from genealogists researching their family trees, to teachers who are using the website in their classrooms, to history scholars from museums. By and large, all comments have been positive, even laudatory. It's a good idea to enable visitors to the website to email someone on the website team; this avenue of informal feedback is both popular with visitors and unstructured enough to allow a variety of response—much of it informative and useful, and it allows the web developers to contact the visitor providing the feedback and engage in a dialog, if desired.

    top of page


    About This Site   Resources   Glossary   Teachers' Guide   Site Map   How To  
    © 2020 PVMA / Memorial Hall Museum