Website evaluation of ywamkb.net

From YWAMKnowledgeBase
Jump to: navigation, search


This is an example for the survey Evaluate your YWAM website, but also to follow the overall progress of our site.

Survey September 2009

Essential Information

General Information

Name of site: YWAM's Knowledge Base (OK, 5 points.)
URL: ywamkb.net (OK, 5 points.)
Goal of site ("Mission Statement"): "The place for YWAMers to find help and give help to each other." (OK, 5 points.)
Target Audience: YWAMers. (OK, 5 points.)
Responsible Organisation: YWAM Brussels / YWAM International (Not very clear. How "official" is this wiki? 3 points.)

Kevin responds I am pleased this Survey was done. It is very helpful. Some responses. Responsible Organisation: Not very clear. How "official" is this wiki? - as far as I know all that is required for a site to be an official YWAM site is for the words "A Ministry of YWAM International" with a link to www.ywam.org. Then they will recognise and list the site. Apart from that there are no more requirements. Hence section one below which is my attempt to improve the obvious links to YWAM International.

Legal Information

Responsible Person: Kevin Colyer and Steve Sullivan - Not very prominent place, and not clearly communicated. Are both held responsible? 3 points.
Postal Address of Responsible Person: Not found. Necessary in Belgium? 0 or 5 points.
National legal entity government body: No reference to a non-profit organisation. 0 points.
Disclaimer concerning liabilities: OK, may be elaborated further. 4 points.
Privacy Policy: OK. 5 points.

Total: 35 or 40 points. Failed.

Kevin responds I think this needs to be addressed in a re-design of the main page. Could be clearer.

Now let's start the survey:

Your Site's Relationship to YWAM

  1. Who is YWAM?
    • YWAM_DNA (Audio only)
    • YWAM_Websites_List
    • Result: Not very clear for outsiders (e.g. I don't find any link for the YWAM_Statement_of_Faith) This can be excused that the main audience are YWAMers. Clear what-can-I-find-here communication for YWAMers. 5 points.
  2. YWAM Logo? OK. 5 points.
  3. YWAM Logo unmodified? It's blue (OK). It's with shadow (Not OK.) 3 points.
  4. YWAM Logo proportions? OK. 5 points.
  5. Link to YWAM International? OK. 10 points.
  6. tier up? Should be YWAM Int. here. OK. 10 points.
  7. national legal entity government body ? Didn't find any. 0 points.
  8. No Sensitive Informations? I can't judge. 5 points.

Total: 43 points. OK

Kevin responds
  • Point 1: Yep, we are not clear - but the KB is kind of an Intranet on the internet. I have neglected the non-ywamer stumbling over the site. This needs addresses as an external-pr issue.
  • Point 2 - Logo - yep I know! It should not be modified... but but but but is it not prettier this way????? ;-)
  • Point 7 - National legal entity - well YWAM Brussels is the largest sponsor. But not clear... This question was anyway designed for sites targeted to a specific country to show their charity affiliation. But I could add more details in here.
  • Sensitive information - I very much hope not. That would be inappropriate for a website facing the general public. We could easily err. Perhaps a clearer notice for the key webmaster?

The Quality of Your Site

Report: Media:Ywamkb_evaluation.pdf‎

Total: 101 points Failed.

Kevin responds The most valid remarks in the document I think are:
  • We need to consider the site in relation to PR to a non-Christian world. Just because it is an Intranet on the Internet doesn't exempt some thought here... It does PR even if that is not the goal...
  • Layout of site: well tested in lots of browsers, but how is it working on iphones, netbooks and small browsers? I use an 800x600 device all the time and no problems but I want to keep an eye on this.
  • Disabilities: I am not sure this ought to be more of a goal than multiple-language support. Also the media-wiki is text based and lends itself well to screen readers/braille devices. Would welcome input here.
  • Site testing. Some informal testing happens - we should do more. Perhaps, "Introduce a YWAMer to the KB" day?
  • Proof reading: I think we should define a subset of pages for high quality presentation. The rest probably not.
  • Homepage - I think this needs a drastic overhaul, it is too tall, has too many links and aims to do too much. Perhaps fewer links to more complete pages...? BIG POINT
  • Reducing links - perhaps, but the side links are important and Wikipedia sets our precedent. Visitors have a familiarity for us due to WP's prominence (Top 10 website world wide)
  • Speed - could be improved. Not sure of priority level here.
  • "Articles I just visited list" - a good idea. There are some relevant breadcrumb/wiki path extensions available.
  • Jargon words - can't really be avoided. At least they could be hyper-linked or searched out. Perhaps not on PR type pages.
  • Pictures of people. Yes, we need more
  • Activities - yes we could raise this profile.
  • Links - this was a surprise. PitPat found few links when googling. YET, I know of lots of links to the KB, I have placed lots myself. I wonder if the test was correct? Site has been added to Google and other web engines and I see logs of spiders visiting the site.???? Perhaps some more investigation needed here.
  • Gospel presentation???? I think we could consider something here to explain YWAM to non-Christians in an accurate and also evangelistic way. Certainly a page pulling what YWAM believes together would help.
  • XHTML compliance: we scored a poor 22 errors on the main page. After a little poking around I discovered that, we can pass with no errors!!! (This page does!!!) The guilty parties are the extensions, in our case Create Page and Embed Flash. In the former there was some not well formed code that I could correct and some odd things I don't understand that I can't correct. In the latter, this is flash and there are some problems with embed tags. There are two minor errors in the CSS code. I can't see much benefit in going deeper. Updating the extensions will probably help but Flash... well its Flash.

The Quality of the Management of Your Site

  1. Do you have frequent reviews of the site? Not yet. Feedback is sought at monthly meetings. 2 points.
  2. Are you making sure it has fresh and good new content? Regular Main page updates (see version history). 8 points.
  3. Are all back-end server hosting/domains paid for and to date? Yes. 5 points.
  4. Are all used online programs (e.g. Drupal) up to date? MediaWiki uses an unmaintained version. 0 points.
  5. Are all the server details and domain details and site details documented so others can easily take on the management of the site? No. 0 points.
  6. Do you have a plan for backup and data recovery in place? Have you tested it? Backup (database + files) is automated. The Restore Procedure has been tested, but not recently. 8 points.
  7. Do you have staff in place with the right skills to maintain the site? Texts are maintained by wiki contributers. There is staff with technical skills, but not for this particular site. 3 points.
  8. Does it do what you want? Training, not measurable, no fruit seen yet. Growth of page visits, so popularity. 4 points.


Total: 30 points. Failed.

Summary of Survey 2009

Essential information: 35 points out of 50 (target: 45) FAIL
Relationship to YWAM: 43 points out of 50 (target: 35) OK
Quality of site: 101 points out of 400 (target: 250) FAIL
Quality of management: 30 points out of 50 (target: 35) FAIL

Action Points Following the Review

Kevin responds Having 3 fails and 1 pass is better than four fails, but there is clearly much to improve. Check back in 12 months to see another evaluation, and what sort of improvement we make! What follows should be a long action plan.
  1. Next review by the latest at September 2010
  2. Address legal information section deficiencies, by improving the ABOUT page to add all missing details.
    • DONE 11/9/9 - changed footer on Fratman skin to carry same info as default skin. Just need rest of improvements.
    • DONE 11/9/9 - dumped in legal information. But its not pretty... not pretty...
  3. It is clear that we need to address certain issues of PR at this stage:
    • How we communicate the purpose of the site outside of its target audience, as it is after all a PUBLIC face of YWAM.
    • Some aspects highlighted above are clear pointers to the people responsible, plus the policies and contact points for legal reasons
    • New Front page needed. Ideas should be tried here: YWAMKnowledgeBase:New Main Page
    • The front page should not be scrolling when viewed at 1024x768 - but on it we need to address our users and help them engage with getting what they want and getting involved.
    • PR needed on Front page - What is YWAM, What does YWAM believe, Interesting YWAM websites (move from nav bar?). Pitch it for non-ywamer Christian and also awareness of non-Christian readership.
    • Select some pages for higher level of quality - to present polish to the world.
    • Address design issues - move to a new skin, get the link to YWAM international right... etc.
    • Mind the Gap issue of loading time on 56K modem (e.g. African world, or other places with poor internet) currently taking 30 secs. I would like to know if this improves with the caching on 2nd and subsequent pages, as it is the same graphics and javascript being used. I can implement some proxy-caching which will reduce the php processing time but need assurance of benefit of effort invested. Input please!!!!
      • DONE mod_deflate enabled (was installed but disabled --Kev-The-Hasty 14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • DONE - Server RAM increased from 256 to 512. (Memcached increased from 64 to 128Mb. mod-php allowed 32Mb ram per script in php.ini. Gzip compression enabled in php.ini).
      • Mind The Gap Test created and several sites tested and compared. YWAMKB fares VERY well in contrast to other major YWAM sites for speed. Perhaps little further optimisation is needed. However, it is easy in a server migration to switch off things like gzip compression and diminish performace, so worth keeping an eye on. But 32 secs loading for first page on 56k modem is unlikely to be improved upon.--Kev-The-Hasty 10:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • See discussion page for recent testing and comments. Subsequent pages take a minimum of 1.5 seconds to load on a 56K modem.
  4. BACKEND management
    • create a way the site will get reviewed regularly
    • make the domain re-registration more open and reduce bus-factors.
      • DONE 11/9/9
    • document the servers and personally brief some trusted YWAMers (in Brussels and beyond) on how to keep the KB alive.
    • Review and test the backup procedure
      • DONE - backed up wiki before upgrade - MW tree and SQL file now about 75Mb. --Kev-The-Hasty 14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • software updates and testing (perhaps a wiki log of it?)
      • DONE - MediaWiki upgraded to 1.15.1 --Kev-The-Hasty 14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Longer term
    • Site testing - observe new users and learn from their pain!
    • More people pictures
    • Keep asking people to link to us
    • Clarify our growth and usage goals and measure against for review.
    • Keep improving the structure!
  6. Aim to pass the tests next time!
  7. Vote of thanks for PitPat at the next wiki meeting!

Survey June 2010

Essential Information

Name of site: YWAM's Knowledge Base (OK, 5 points.)
URL: ywamkb.net (OK, 5 points.)
Goal of site ("Mission Statement"): Provide Information, Share Knowledge (5 points.)
Target Audience: YWAMers, maybe also outside of YWAM? (A little faint answer, but correct, 4 points.)
Responsible Organisation: YWAM Brussels / YWAM International (This took some Time. The relation to YWAM International should be clarified. 3 points.)

Responsible Person: Kevin Colyer and Steve Sullivan - Found straight away this time. 5 points.
Postal Address of Responsible Person: Found. 5 points.
National legal entity government body: YWAM Brussels. 5 points.
Disclaimer concerning liabilities: OK, may be elaborated further (legal stuff, see wikipedia:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer). 4 points.
Privacy Policy: OK. 5 points.

Total: 46 points. Passed.

Your Site's Relationship to YWAM

  1. Who is YWAM?
  2. YWAM Logo? OK. 5 points.
  3. YWAM Logo unmodified? It's blue (OK). It's with shadow (Not OK.) 5 + 3 points.
  4. Link to YWAM International? OK. 10 points.
  5. tier up? Should be YWAM Int. here. OK. 10 points.
  6. No Sensitive Informations? OK. 5 points.

Total: 43 points. Passed. (Didn't change since last evaluation).

The Quality of Your Site

Report: Media:ywamkb_evaluation_2010.pdf

Total: 156 points. Not passed yet, but better than last's time.

Kevin Comments: xhmtl now passes on most pages. Main page remains a problems.
  • Rating bar had a rogue closing </div> extra.
  • Actions portlet needed a space between elements in a link. Changed in frantman_kb.backup too.

Main Page:

  • Create box needed a training / in a hidden input and had gained a paragraph tag mysteriously.
  • Now down to 6 errors from 22. All errors seems to be related to embed video tag.

Reading the report - the aim of the report is very much at odds with our site. Still we have room for improvement. I am happy we are failing by less! --Kev-The-Hasty 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Quality of the Management of Your Site

  1. Do you have frequent reviews of the site? This evaluation is scheduled yearly, and watching newbies should become a tradition, too. 5 points. (Next time some external person should do this evaluation.)
  2. Are you making sure it has fresh and good new content? As far as possible ... some months with much activity, and some "dead" ones, too. The Template "Recent Articles" in the main page should be updated more often. 7 points.
  3. Are all back-end server hosting/domains paid for and to date? Yes. 5 points.
  4. Are all used online programs & the server up to date? MediaWiki needs securtiy updates. Server is up to date. 2 points.
  5. Are all the server details and domain details and site details documented so others can easily take on the management of the site? Yes, Bus-Factor of 1. 5 points.
  6. Do you have a plan for backup and data recovery in place? Have you tested it? Backup (database + files) is automated. The Restore Procedure has been tested, but not recently. 8 points.
  7. Do you have staff in place with the right skills to maintain the site? Texts are maintained by wiki contributors. There is staff with technical skills for this site, but not located at Brussels. 4 points.
  8. Does it do what you want? Still growth of page visits & users registering, so popularity. Article number recently declined (quality ensurance). No clear targets defined. 4 points.

Total: 40. OK.

Summary of Survey 2010

Essential information: 46 points out of 50 (target: 45) OK
Relationship to YWAM: 43 points out of 50 (target: 35) OK
Quality of site: 156 points out of 400 (target: 250) FAILED
Quality of management: 40 points out of 50 (target: 35) OK