With Google Sites as each page essentially needs to be produced individually (producing templates of portions of the site helps, but each page does need to be produced individually), for a site with a large number of pages this is extremely time consuming. A further problem with Google Sites for this project is CSS can't easily be transferred, though to a large extent HTML can, the formatting of the site has to be redone. For this site with around 500 pages Google Sites, with the site needing to look as close as possible to the original is not the most appropriate solution, but other techniques investigated are more suitable. Google Sites is an appropriate solution if the number of pages is small, the formatting of the pages is not too complicated and it is a new web site.
A quick option is to use the
public folder of a DropBox account a URL can be created and if the content is
not going to change and yet you want it still publicly accessible,; this is a
reasonable option. It is free (if you have a free account) and publicly
accessible but it does have some drawbacks:
- The URL produced is a little cryptic -
it doesn't really bear a direct relationship with the site's name or
content. So is a poor option in terms of Search Engine Optimisation point
of view.
- It is difficult to add some common web
analysis tools. Google Analytics is easy you, but tools such as Google
Webmaster tools are much more difficult to work with.
- It is only really useful for static
content.
- As with all the free options there is
the concern that it is only an option will the service running is
available.
Overall though this is a
reasonable quick route for hosting content that is unlikely to change and if
the DropBox account and a new email address to set up the account are
specifically set up for the project, then transferring ownership or sharing
access is uncomplicated it just means giving the email and password to the
other person.
Amazon cloud route is an
alternative, there are still some of the drawbacks common to the Dropbox route,
namely:
- The URL produced is a still a little
cryptic - it doesn't really bear a direct relationship with the site's
name or content. So is a poor option in terms of Search Engine
Optimisation. Saying that it is a little better than the Dropbox option as
you can include a site name within the URL.
- As with all the free options there is
the concern that it is only an option will the service running
- You also can though add to the
site tools not available to the
DropBox options such as Google and Bing Webmaster tools.
Overall
though this is a good hosting option that is unlikely to be lost due to the
backing of Amazon. Directly transferring the site is problematic not from
technical stand-point but administratively. A credit card is need when setting
the initial account, those details would need to be changed early in the
transfer process. Amazon is appropriate for both new and previously
developed material is being migrated. More details on setting this up can be
found at either http://websitesustainability.blogspot.com/2011/07/initial-work-with-amazons-web-service.html
or in Dan Frost’s article in .Net magazine (Frost, 2011a, Frost, 2011b).
Both Amazon and DropBox are
appropriate for new and old sites.
An alternative that was investigated
was adding the content on to another site such as www.sustainabilty.net
but this is reliant on the person
owning the site being willing to add it to their site. There are other problems
with approach it is not easy to transfer control of the site through this
route. The advantages though can included the site being more accessible to
mobile devices which is a service being offered by a lot of the paid-hosting
services.
For this type of activity, it is
unlikely to come as little surprise that static website are easier to transfer,
especially if you don't have direct access to the files on the original sites
server. Tools such as WinHTTrack Website Copier (http://www.httrack.com/)
extract the HTML returned from the server which could be a problem for PHP
based sites, the copying tools would extract it as HTML and for some the
hosting sites option using more dynamic technologies is a little problematic
without a re-building of the site, the case in point being Google Sites.
Feedback from users was collected using http://www.esurveyspro.com/ but was distributed
using emails extract from email address on the site but also through LinkedIn
contacts. Though the email address and IP address were not collected, the email
route was investigated first, but when the call went out on LinkedIn, the
response rate increased, suggesting using social networking sites can be an effective
dissemination method.
The questionnaire included questions about the navigation of
the site in general and the Tube Map carried out to see overall do the users
like the site and what changes would they look for. The aim being to provide
some information for later developments of the site, but refining the site is
not the focus of this work. For the sustainability of the site questions about
are people actually interested in the site? There is some evidence that they
are.
In the survey for the site http://www.web-sustainablity.net/emkn/ 78% of the
responders (N=15) said they would use the site.
Quotes from
responders
“I do use
the Tube Map, as it has some excellent information, links and contacts etc Would
be open to seeing this retained and or further updated and developed so that it
can be a really interactive tool.”
“Site contains lots of useful info that I was
not aware was available”
One responder said
“Perhaps
a search box on this page that users could use to quickly locate the item on
the map would complement the site” Search boxes were added to the sites in response to this comment in a
sustainable way (see http://websitesustainability.blogspot.com/2011/07/adding-search-to-site.html
for more details).
1.2 Immediate
Impact
The main benefit is
to the wider community is that options for the making sites mores sustainable
have been considered.
For the stakeholders
an ‘at-risk’ site has been protect and available for when the site has to be
removed from the current paid hosting option.
1.3 Future
Impact
Some of this has been disseminated on a
posting on a University of Northampton blog of ‘expert opinion’ (http://blogs.northampton.ac.uk/expertsatnorthampton/2011/09/27/web-sustainability-its-gone/)
aimed at disseminating ideas from the
university to the wider community.
Tracking of the sites usage through and the
blogs usage will continue, through Google Analytics in all case but where
possible though appropriate web tools.
2
Conclusions
Google Sites based solution are
appropriate if there are a small number of pages within the site, where you
have some flexibility of the design of the site (especially if the site it is
not reliant on CSS) and the pages are essentially static pages. If your site
does match any one of these, it is best to look at alternatives, such as
dropbox and amazon S3. Otherwise Google Sites is a good option, especially
as it has the backing of major company.
As with all sites (or perhaps
even more so due to these sites not necessarily having support, but still
useful), following good Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) principles are important. The
site, we hope, is going to be use by others but the resources behind the site
are likely to minimal. Following good SEO principles at least gives the site an
improved chance of being picked up by the search engines. One possible
advantage of the Google Sites approach is URL produced as standard is a little
easier to interpret than some of the other techniques, which could have some
benefits from a Search engine optimisation perspective.
3
Recommendations
The area of sustainability of websites should be an
important consideration for any funding that involves public money, both during
the life-time of the project and after it. Especially when government funded
agencies are being rationalised finding ways to keep the sites going even if
they are not updated further, they still provide a ‘snap-shot’ of the resources
at a particular point in time. This project looked at possible sustainability
options and has the following recommendations:
·
A sustainable web solution should be considered
for funded projects. There are a number of free options.
·
Google Sites is an appropriate solution if the
number of pages is small, the formatting of the pages is not too complicated
and it is a new web site.
·
Amazon is appropriate for both new and
previously developed material is being migrated.
·
Dropbox is as in the Amazon solution appropriate
for new and previously developed sites and is appropriate if only basic
tracking tools such as Google analytics are needed.
·
Sustainable web solutions proposed are good as a
back-up or archiving solution; but also can be used as the main site if the
domain name is redirected to the new site.
4
Implications for
the future
- First another site (or more accurately part of
a site) whose contents are likely to lost in a restructuring of an
organisation might possibly be 'rescued' using one of the methods
discussed.
- Amazon S3 approach is under investigation.
- A paper based on this work is
under-development.
The
blog will be maintained by the project manager as long-term personal project,
it is hosted on Blogger so is free. The site www. web-sustainablity.net
will be maintained as a personal site.
5
References
Frost D (2011a) “The web dev’s intro to the cloud (part 1) “
.Net summer 2011 pp 100-102
Frost D (2011b) “The web dev’s intro to the cloud (part 1) “
.[online]
URL: http://www.netmagazine.com/features/web-dev-s-intro-cloud-part-1 [Accessed on: 29/9/2011]
