What follows is a rubric I’ve been working on for Digital Library Services which is housed in the University of Iowa Main Libraries. The rubric was driven by the need to serve faculty and staff exploring how to present their own research, primarily humanities projects, digitally.
Version 1 of the rubric was shared with DLS on Tuesday, November 22, 2011. This rubric is still under development. I welcome critiques and comments.
|Content Management System Overview|
|Developer community||Smaller, more expert-level||Focused, smaller, but growing||Larger, from novice to expert|
|Ease of use||Hard
Steep learning curve
Low-to-moderate learning curve
Moderate learning curve
Easy to corrupt
|Plugin variety (extensible?)||Yes, fairly well developed||Yes, growing development||Yes, fairly well developed|
|Theme variety||Many variations in style, layout, color, etc.
Can edit CSS in browser through module
Rich exhibition builder plugin
|Many variations in style, layout, color, etc.
Can edit CSS in browser
|Mobile interface||Built-in with certain themes||In development||Built-in with certain themes|
|User accounts||Administrator—content manager
Admin—add, edit anything
Contributor—add, edit own
Researcher—view non-public items
|Admin—manage all content
Editor—manage others’ content
Author—manage own content
Contributor—manage own content; no publishing
Subscriber—manage own profile
Uses modules (expertise required)
Simple Pages plugin
Advanced: HTML, PHP
Can build small websites with minimal experience
“Methods” is a bit grad-schooly of a header for this section, but fine enough to label how I went about creating this rubric. I have been exploring and advocating for WordPress since 2008, choosing the platform to maintain my own website once I wanted to document and share information throughout my graduate coursework. For researching WordPress, I did what most bloggers do and google widely and ferociously.
For both Drupal and Omeka, the research focused on a back-and-forth between working with a version of the systems installed on a server, googling, and (much) trial and error. My test Omeka collection may be accessed here. My Drupal site, well, never quite got off the ground and there’s nothing shared there publicly.
Also for Drupal, I was able to interview a couple of people who maintain Drupal sites and describe their technology skills as below average. It was great to hear from those who already use it, and if this research were more empirical I would need to reach out to a greater sample size on each CMS. Since this is less formal research, I relied more heavily on my own observations and experience with WordPress and Omeka.
This section should also grow as this resource does. For now, it’ll just hold a few links.
Great insights on similar research: R. J. Townsend on Drupal v. WordPress v. Joomla!
Citation for formal case study on Omeka:
Kucsma, J., Reiss, K., & Sidman, A. (2010 March/April). Using Omeka to build digital collections: The METRO case study. D-Lib Magazine (16) 3-4. Accessed through http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/kucsma/03kucsma.html.
ProfHacker on Teaching with Omeka
My to-do list now includes exploring the following questions: How do TEI and linked data fit in? What likelihood could there be an export function for editing or updating metadata? I would also like to explore building Omeka exhibitions more and lurk more deeply on the Omeka developers forums. I may be becoming an Omeka fangirl so call my bias out if you see it.