Ross Yates, Manager Online Solutions, Educational & Online Technology, Information Services, Curtin University of Technology. PO Box U1987, Perth, [HREF16], GPO Box U1987, WA, 6845. r.yates@curtin.edu.au
Abstract
Whilst early writers such as Sterling (1993) described the Internet and, later, the World Wide Web, as a medium that could be neither regulated nor controlled, recent legal findings have dispelled the notion of a utopian cyberspace, free of legislative constraints. Of particular significance is the focus on the breach of laws related to web content, and the accountability of organisations who provide the supporting technical infrastructures. Cases such as Gutnick v. Dow Jones and Barrons (2000) and Sony et al. v. three prominent Australian universities (2003) have foreshadowed the potential for actions in defamation and copyright infringements. At the same time, the great value of the Internet is its openness and inherent usability for self-publishing. With organisations becoming more aware of web-based risk factors, the interplay between technology and usability has challenged contemporary publishing methodologies, and invoked new thinking on the key elements required for a more sustainable web management model.
Introduction
The utopian vision applied to the early beginnings of the Internet and, later, the World Wide Web was principally characterised by the unrestricted flow of information and an unregulated environment which fell beyond the control of governments and law making bodies. Supporting this notion, Dov Wisebrod (1995) stated the following: "…the anarchy of the Internet is a powerful, co-operative, functional force that cannot be subjected to centralised control". Reinforcing this notion, Sterling (1993) suggested: "The Internet is a rare example of a true, modern, functional anarchy". Whilst these views may had some truth during the formative years of the Internet, the speed with which cyberspace evolved and grew exponentially, accelerated its prominence in the information arena and offered improved benefits to users.
The attraction of relative anonymity of identity, provided a measure of protection for those who wished to air their views on matters which could not be addressed in conventional media, such as print. Sterling (1993) exemplified this perception by stating "Why do people want to be on the Internet? One of the main reasons is simple freedom". The ease of access and availability of web real estate, combined with the ability to instantly publish material, to a world-wide audience, promoted the web as a convenient tool of choice to disseminate information.
The Web as vehicle has been particularly significant in the promotion of information within the academic arena, and therefore any efforts to reduce publishing rights by academics will be viewed with suspicion. The challenge faced by organisations, and more specifically, university web environments, is the accommodation of academic freedom to publish, with the introduction of more restrictive measures designed to safeguard the organisation. Whilst the Web has matured as an information medium, perceptions regarding its initial “unfettered” state will need to undergo significant change to achieve an acceptable level of conformity with regulated publishing standards. In the interim additional vigilance on the part of organisations will be required in order to mitigate the possibility of risk.
This paper seeks to trace the changing web culture, from its early unrestricted state, to the present day, sophisticated environment, in which increasingly legal responses to what occurs online can be seen to erode the social fabric of this medium. Set against the backdrop of a large, university environment, current issues posed by this changing state are identified, and models such as the introduction of content management systems, corporate standardisation and regulatory measures, which address current problems, will be examined.
History of the Web
According to Van Duyne, Landay and Hong (2000), the mantra for the first generation of business web sites was "build it, and they will come." The quantitative focus of early web site creation was the product of multi-skilled web developers who were tasked with generating web sites, with the primary purpose of providing a corporate web presence. Early-adopter organisations, eager to take advantage of the internet boom, embarked on a vigorous development campaign to ensure that they had a web presence to promote their products. Without appropriate benchmarks in place, corporate web sites were developed in reaction to business needs, and expanded upon in an ad hoc manner, in response to changing corporate requirements. The resulting first-generation sites were characterised by poor design and technological experimentation, with web developers displaying an eagerness to introduce cutting-edge technology, despite the pitfalls which may inhibit usability. This approach raised questions as to the effectiveness of this business model, with site visitors not necessarily translating into improved company profitability.
Heightened awareness of the need to promote web sites, according to Van Duyne, Landay and Hong (2000), was instrumental in initiating a change in methodology, following the evolutionary shift to second generation web site development. This resulted in an "advertise it, and they will come" approach being adopted, which highlighted the requirements of web based material, to ascribe to traditional advertising, in order to gain exposure. Offutt and Lee (2002) note that second generation web sites included elements such as background colours, tables and centring, but more apparent was the emphasis placed on appearance. As graphic designers turned their creative skills towards web development, this trend manifested itself in the proliferation of graphic-rich web sites, which, whilst they were aesthetically appealing, were slow loading and cumbersome, causing frustration for the viewer.
The third generation web according to Ellis (2003), introduced interactivity as an enriching component of web usage, in contrast to earlier static web pages which did not facilitate user communication. Commercial web content, most notably E-Commerce, was heralded as an opportunity to significantly increase financial prospects and promote corporate identity. Many adopters of this enhanced functionality had to bear additional costs in the form of new hardware and software, and more importantly, staff skilled in the development and maintenance of the newly implemented applications.
The following diagram provides a summary of the key characteristics of the evolution of web development since its inception, to the present.
Web Evolution Characteristics
|
Generation |
Technical |
Business Model |
Management |
Risk |
|
1st |
· Static HTML · Low graphic content · Experimentation · Poor design |
· No planning · Reactive · Experimentation |
· Ad hoc |
Low |
|
2nd |
· Appearance centric · Graphic rich · Slow loading · Static HTML |
· Print aligned · Reactive · Experimentation · Web advertising |
· Ad hoc |
Low |
|
3rd |
· Interactivity · E-Commerce · Hardware heavy · Dynamic content |
· Structured · Organisation focus |
· CMS* · Self management · Web staff trained |
Med |
|
4th |
· XML & Java · Cross platform sites · Improved interactivity |
· Strategic alignment |
· Site management · No governance · Page archiving · Ageing material |
High |
* Content Management Systems
During the internet boom years of the late 1990's and early 2000's, the focus remained firmly on the implementation of new technology and the generation of new and improved web sites, and did not place any emphasis on governance or regulatory procedures. Site management methodologies such as page archiving, data ageing and take-down procedures where largely ignored, leading to large scale, redundant legacy data clusters remaining on the host servers. This scenario creates the potential for incorrect information being provided to site visitors, and paving the way for possible legal recourse.
Quacchia (2002) suggests that poorly designed and unplanned corporate web sites have significantly increased the possibility of losses being incurred by the organisation. Areas affected include time and resources and more importantly, the organisational image may be damaged through negative perceptions of its information resources. This is particularly evident in the case of university web sites, which are expected to offer a significantly higher standard of material to a diverse and geographically dispersed audience, than those of a non-educational nature. With close links to the Internet, universities have provided a fertile development environment for innovative practices, taking advantage of the consolidation of web skills, and the availability of supporting technical infrastructures.
Whilst this climate has fostered large scale web development activities, much of it took place during the early formative years of the Net, in an environment which lacked any formal regulatory measures, benchmarks or policies. Jacka (2000, 1) describes the unique characteristics of university web sites as: "…a multifarious, devolved and often disparate entity, an assemblage of a large number of smaller units, managed and developed by individual units reflecting their aims and objectives (or at least those of the site author)". The complexities of a university web environment extend beyond the traditional corporate environment inasmuch as they frequently operate within loosely defined boundaries which encourage participation and self expression, whilst at the same time requiring adherence to the pursuit of a centrally defined, organisational direction. Jacka (2000, 1) suggests that whilst there is a management expectation to view the university web presence as a unified whole, different divisional entities often do not share the same vision, and consequently, may not reach consensus on the overall goals. This narrow view negatively impacts on site usability, and provides a fragmented and disjointed impression of university services to users.
Content management
The exponential growth of large university web sites and the concomitant demise of usability, uniformity and cohesion has accelerated the devolution of responsibility to departmental or divisional level, as the central control model becomes increasing more unwieldy. This process has not only provided a less restrictive publishing environment, but also posed new challenges with regard to risk minimisation and uniform branding standards. Gilbert and Latham (2003) describe the current stage of evolutionary development of the web as "controlled chaos", and suggest that enterprises are seeking solutions by examining the requirements for individual organisational units, then building organisational strategies around this framework. As the number and complexity of issues increase, more organisations are exploring content management systems as a vehicle to institute web site reform, and begin the process of addressing the critical issues facing the organisation.
Sensing this trend, software vendors have seized the opportunity to develop solutions which not only address business needs such as records management, but more importantly, web content management, thereby facilitating the creation of a more tightly controlled online publishing environment. Additionally, the implementation of more restrictive internal web policies, has accelerated the introduction of a more effectively governed web environment, which poses less risk to the organization.
According to the Butler Group (2003, 17) the late eighties and early nineties saw the introduction of document managements systems and were the first large-scale attempt to automate the handling of unstructured information. The convergence of two former disparate objects, content management and data management, in response to the broad needs of contemporary organisational information management policies, gave rise to enterprise content management systems.
Butler Group (2003, 17) suggested that despite web content being classified as an organisation’s greatest asset, the lack of content management provision in the planning and management strategies has a significant impact on organisational profitability. Whilst it could be argued that educational institutions do not share the same profit-making ethos as those of commercial entities, the critical importance of data cannot be overemphasised. This could be largely attributable to the fact that there may exist a higher expectation of data integrity on the part of users of university electronic services. This situation is further compounded by the high degree of reliance placed upon web information for teaching and learning, as well as operational-centric activities such as student information.
Butler Group (2003) seeks to define an enterprise content management system as "…a rich set of document and content services that address a wide range of different content types". Encompassed in this definition are technologies such as business documents, electronic transactions, emails and also online learning. From this definition it is clear that enterprise content management systems have an extremely broad agenda, which may be a significant disadvantage, when such an application is put forward for acceptance to various divisions of the organisation. Where such a product has strengths in a particular area such as document and record management, it may be lacking in web site management, requiring two systems and incurring additional costs and increasing the overall Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of the designated package.
Whist benefits exist which support the implementation of a content management system within a university environment, the high costs of introducing such a system would require high-level, cross organisational input to ensure wide spread acceptance, a scenario which is unlikely to get approval, given the differing expectations, and levels of understanding that would be experienced within the academic culture. The mere suggestion of the introduction of a more tightly regulated, less fluid and spontaneous web development culture would heighten resistance across the organisation, and polarise groups opposed to any measures which serve to diminish publishing freedom.
Risk and regulatory measures
The increased threat of litigation, primarily as a result of copyright breaches and illegal web content, has driven the need to consider regulatory measures within large university environments. The focus on corporate accountability has, in recent times, seen universities become embroiled in costly legal defences, and they have been held accountable for illegal material when this has been discovered on their web infrastructures.
Hayes (2003) highlights a recent case involving EMI, Sony and Universal against the universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Tasmania for alleged music piracy by users of the universities networks. Tilley (1999, 3) suggests that the music industry has the most to lose from the propagation of MP3 music on the web, and music companies are taking decisive steps to combat these activities. Deploying improved detection methods, agents acting on behalf of record companies and software vendors are easily able to scour large web sites and locate illicit material, such as music or software files locate on university servers. Despite the implementation of stringent procedures for initial web publishing account creation being put in place to ensure the integrity of applicants, once approval has been granted and the web space allocated, it is difficult to vet all material uploaded to corporate servers. Whilst the strategic solution may be to immediately curtail web publishing activities, in a democratic and greatly devolved university web environment, influences such as the democratic climate of the organisation, and differing content needs of the division, pose additional challenges.
Jacka (2000) highlights that in a decentralised university model, the implementation of policy and procedure is an essential component of web site management methodology, and is required to ensure the smooth running and success of the overall web infrastructure. The key to ensuring continued sustainable web development is only achievable if those responsible for publishing content are provided adequate documentation and direction to aid the decision making process. It is clear, therefore, that the building blocks of web site regulation lie with the implementation of a procedure which clearly outlines what is permissible, not only with regard to the type of content, but also the manner in which this it to be achieved.
According to the Curtin University of Technology Web Publishing Procedure (2001), critical elements such as: the scope of application, permissible material, appropriate legislation governing, URL naming conventions, protection of intellectual property and a procedure for new publishers, provide an essential framework for the structured and ongoing regulation of the University web infrastructure. Whilst this approach may be effective, better results may be achieved through the introduction of mechanisms which restrict web material at the server level.
The Curtin University of Technology Web Server Infrastructure Procedure (2001) provides direction on the regulatory measures applied to university web servers. The applicability of technical standards, such as platform and hardware environment are identified, which are supported by the corporate architecture. The visibility of servers outside of the university network is identified as a potential risk area, as servers may simply be created on desktop machines and deliver content to the world, without the knowledge of central web management staff. The ability to react swiftly to any infractions is also diminished due to the difficulty in accessing unauthorised servers as they may be located away from the traditional technical services location, thereby preventing corrective action such as the implementation of take-down notices occurring. Whilst these mechanisms are effective in regulating the university web environment, the possibility still exists for inappropriate material to be published on university web sites.
Risk, in the form of defamation or the publishing of offensive web material, such as that which may be overtly racist in nature, also places the university in a position of risk. Dutton (2003) highlights the potential for legal action by citing the Gutnick v Dow Jones & Barrons case. The legal principle underpinning this case was the ability to pursue action resulting from the web material, in this instance, defamatory content, that resided in another country. The legal precedent set in this matter, was the ruling that the case could be heard in Australia, and not in the United States where the material was originally published and physically located. This outcome instantly expanded the pool of possible litigants who have the potential to sue large organisations, including universities, for web content deemed to be in breach of laws in the country where the material was viewed. Whilst the full ramifications of this outcome have yet to be tested, there is clearly increased risk associated with web publishing activities, which should be addressed by the imposition of tighter publishing policies which clearly define the boundaries in which web developers publish material.
The diverse mix of web publishers who have access to upload web material to university servers, since the inception of the web services in universities, have done so in a largely unregulated environment. Vast amounts of redundant web material now reside on servers, without being subjected to archiving regimes to remove the outdated information from public view. Whilst this process may appear innocuous, search engines continue to traverse the web framework, listing pages, including orphaned material, and make this available to site visitors. In instances where this outdated material provides information of a financial nature, such as fees and charges, this process can place the university in a position of risk and requires proactive efforts to mitigate the adverse effects.
Some key strategies suggested by McClure, Smith and Sitko (1997) to improve the quality of material on web sites include:
In direct conflict with the imposition of regulatory measures for web content, however, is the need to foster an environment which encourages individual participation, and more importantly, freedom of speech. In the academic arena, the right to self expression is valued within the culture, and any departure from this ethos which manifests itself in the form of increased restrictions on web publishing activities, will undermine the very nature of the institution of higher education.
Corporate standardisation
Consolidation of web resources is an urgent necessity within the university environment, not only to minimise risk to the organisation, but also to present a unified, accurate and professionally marketed image to a specific, and increasingly more sophisticated target audience. Closely aligned with policy and regulation, the university web site should receive direction from the Marketing Department or other body within the organisation which is responsible for the corporate image, including elements such as branding and colour schemes that represent individual organisational units.
Whilst the aesthetic appearance of web sites is an important factor, latent elements such as page coding may also pose organisational risk, in instances where non-compliance may be tied to legal obligations. In particular, Accessibility standards should be built into page design specifications to ensure that web pages are visible to all site visitors. The legal implications of sites which fail to meet accessibility standards were highlighted during the Bruce Maguire v SOCOG case during the 2000 Olympic Games. Fischer (2002) outlined the legal principle as follows: "…under Federal disability discrimination legislation it is unlawful for anyone who supplies goods and services to discriminate on the grounds of disabilities. And that covers web sites". From this statement it is clear that concise standards should be in place, not only within the university, but also articulated to web publishers to assist them to identify a range of elements which require implementation to ensure legal compliance. The following are examples of required elements:
Conclusion
This paper has traced the evolution of the Internet to the World Wide Web, drawing distinctions with contemporary university web environments which are characterised by poor, fragmented design, lacking continuity and which contain legacy information and, in many instances, poorly regulated web publishing environments. These combined elements contribute to a high-risk scenario for the university, and require consolidated efforts on the part of all stakeholders to address. Compounding the problem have been the following: the enormous growth in the number of users on the network; technological advancements such as broad band which speed up access and facilitate the acquisition of web content, legal or illegal; and the increased sophistication of users of web systems as has been demonstrated through the high take-up of online education systems.
Whilst there appears to be no clearly defined, single solution to address the complexities of risk within a diverse, disparate university web environment, the solution, according to McClure, Smith and Sitko (1997, 17-19), may be found in the introduction of a federal model. By adopting a collaborative strategy, a central unit would undertake extensive consultation with stakeholders from across the organisation, formulating a governance framework in a manner consistent with organisational needs and culture. The education of all users of the university web infrastructure in the applicable policies, procedures and practices would then be embarked upon in a manner that is acceptable to the custodians of web information, whilst also making progress towards the minimisation of risk posed by an unregulated web environment.
The key to the successful implementation of processes, which significantly depart from the traditional web management models, will require the active participation of all key stakeholders in seeking a solution. Such outcomes should not only be practical, but achieved, cognisant of differing departmental agendas and requirements. Universities which have adopted a collaborative model to web site management, may elicit input from other areas through forums such as focus groups or individual meetings, to enhance the potential of exchange of ideas and concept identification to occur during the initial planning phase. Whilst consultation may not provide solutions to some of the more complex issues regarding web site governance, the role of regulator may rest with an overarching body that receives recommendations from key stakeholders across the organisation. Policy implementation arising from this body would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accommodate the disparate needs of the departments, thereby facilitating the change process.
Butler Group Technology Report (February 2003). Enterprise Content Management: Building a Scalable and Effective Content Infrastructure, 17.
Dutton, D. (2003), Internet Publishers Caught in Web. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved March 26, 2003. Available online [HREF1].
Ellis, H. (2003) Web Application Design and Development. Rensselaer at Hartford, 4. Retrieved March 25, 2003. Available online [HREF2].
Fischer, V. (January 29, 2002). Australians call for greater Web access. Zdnet. Available online [HREF3].
Gilbert, M., and Latham, L. (February, 28, 2003). From Enterprise Content Management to SES and Beyond. Gartner Intraweb. Available online [HREF4]
Hayes, S. (February 25, 2003). Universities track MP3 downloads, The AustralianIT. Available online [HREF5]
Jacka, R. (2000). Managing Dissent. Management strategies for large scale devolved web sites. University of New South Wales. Available online [HREF6]
McClure, A., Smith, J. and Sitko, T. (1997). The Crisis in Information Technology Support: Has our current model reached its limit? Cause Professional Paper No. 16, 17-19. Available online [HREF7]
Offutt, J. and Lee, M. (2002). Web Introduction. Available online [HREF8]
Online Solutions, Curtin University of Technology, Web Publishing Procedure. (November 7, 2001). Available online [HREF9]
Online Solutions, Curtin University of Technology, Web Server Procedure (November 7, 2001). Available online [HREF10]
Quacchia, A. (October 2002). A practical application of a methodology for the development of complex. Available online [HREF11]
Sterling, B. (February 1993). Short History of the Internet by Bruce Sterling. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. Available online [HREF12]
Tilley, S. (June, 1999) MP3: The Net Effects of MP3, 3. Available online [HREF13]
Van Duyne, D., Landay, J. and Hong, J. (Fall 2000). The new phase of web design, The Design of Sites: A Pattern Language for the web. Berkley Multimedia Research Centre. Available online [HREF14]
Wisebrod, D. (1995), Controlling the Uncontrollable: Regulating the Internet. Available online [HREF15]