...
Conclusions of the report
Recap and the Big Picture
Both CommonSpot and Drupal can be modified to offer relatively similar
functionality to the end‐user. However, we believe there are significant differences
between the two products for developers and content contributors. As developers,
we believe that Drupal's accessible, modular architecture will allow for more rapid
development of more sophisticated features.For content contributors, we believe that CommonSpot may have the upper hand
out of the box due to its page centric approach, but we are confident that Drupal
offers greater potential for creation and maintenance of content and will require a
concerted effort to ensure a positive experience for the contributors. In addition, it
will allow contributors to take greater advantage of current Web technologies like
tagging, RSS feeds, blogging and embedded media.A key point to take away here is that no matter the platform, a significant amount of
development is required and necessary for this project to succeed. It is important
that we acknowledge this fact and make a conscious effort and commitment to
create the best possible Web experience for our patrons. Make no mistake, we could
move forward with Drupal and end up with frustrated contributors once again, a
repeat of our CommonSpot experience, if we do not appropriate the resources that
this project deserves and requires.We believe that at this point in time, Drupal is the right content management
software for the CUL Web site. Drupal offers flexibility, a vast array of custom
modules, ease in the implementation of expected Web 2.0 features and out‐of‐thebox
interactivity with a variety of web services.In addition, Drupal's infrastructure will allow us to leverage existing programming
expertise and make possible continued development and maintenance within CUL.
Finally, Drupal offers flexible, forward‐thinking functionality that is not tied to the
agenda of an outside entity but instead offers the chance for CUL to create its own
path in developing user‐friendly information landscapes.