Goal-setting for university websites

Changing how academic departments think about & approach their web presences

Michele Hindman, Design Researcher


Problem definition

University websites frequently fail to meet the needs of their audiences.[1–8] Focusing on the University of North Texas, the following proposal posits that the ecosystem and institutional culture surrounding the web within UNT's colleges and academic departments lead to its own poor website experiences.

Proposed solution

To attempt to address these issues within the constraints of UNT's current ecosystem, current culture, and current budgeted resources, this proposal recommends implementing an onboarding process for people who own an academic department website. This onboarding process should ask the website owner to set specific goals, such as “recruit more graduate students,” and provide actionable recommendations to achieve and measure the on-going success of these goals.

Ideally, this onboarding process will help departments prioritize the work they do on their websites, given the constraints on their time and resources. However, the ultimate intent of this onboarding process would be to influence the culture around websites at UNT—to reframe how departments think about and approach their websites.

What to expect in this proposal

The core problems & why universities should care

Not meeting student needs leads to poor outcomes

University websites are a leading resource for both prospective and current students. Recent research by UniQuest, a UK conversion optimization agency that focuses on student recruitment and retention, found “that for a staggering 50% of enrolled students, the university website wasn’t just the most important channel. It was the only channel used.”[9]

Students use university department websites to gather specific information and complete critical tasks, such as:

However, despite their critical role in modern academia, these websites are notoriously poor at meeting their audience's needs.[1–8] Usability expert Katie Sherwin writes, “It's an empirical fact derived from observing many prospective students using many university sites that these users are often frustrated or thwarted by the frequent usability problems on university sites. The best university websites speak clearly, even to yet-to-be students, and make it easy for everybody to find what they want. The rest fail.”[1]

By failing to meet these needs, students may graduate later, graduate with more debt, drop out, or choose a different school altogether. Ultimately, this means poor website experiences may lead to suboptimal outcomes for the university in the form of lost funding, labor, research, or other resources—the very opposite of what the university hopes to achieve via its websites.

Reasons why websites don’t meet student needs

A myriad of causes contribute to these poor experiences—some universal and some specific to higher ed. These causes make up the culture and ecosystem we'll explore. The primary drivers of these poor website experiences and outcomes at UNT are:

These core reasons are multiplied by a lack of resources and designated authority dedicated to improving the overall website ecosystem. In other words, by making or allowing departments to control their own web presences—with minimal web resources, skills, or knowledge—no one is accountable for how well these websites meet student needs. As a result, success is most often measured by how much departments like or positively perceive their websites instead of how well they accomplish specific institutional goals.[10]

The current ecosystem & roles

Websites are a reflection of the university's silos

Due to decentralized accountability, websites at UNT are created in the image of the organizational structure of the university—a phenomenon best described by Conway's Law: "Organizations which design systems [...] are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations."[11] Put another way, this means that instead of organizing websites and their information architecture around student tasks and mental models, each college, school, department, program, or initiative has its own website.

Each siloed website is designed & edited on its own

Each of these websites at UNT usually has a single website owner who is ultimately responsible for the content of that website. This owner may be the one editing the website as well, but frequently, the owner delegates these tasks to a website editor—sometimes there may be more than one editor per website.

Both owners and editors usually have little to no experience with web design, development, or content strategy. In almost all cases, maintaining a website is unrelated to their main occupation at the university.

Web developers & designers facilitate the ecosystem

Web developers are usually tasked with facilitating a collection of website editors via maintaining a content management system for them. Put simply, this means that web designers and developers at the university provide tools to website editors—they usually do not create, maintain, or organize content.

Some of these developers support hundreds of websites, while some support just a handful. The former are usually incentivized to keep their collection of websites easy to support by standardizing their templates and content management system—the latter are usually employed by individual colleges or departments to do bespoke design and programming. Additionally, developers and designers are embedded in various areas and at various levels of the university with little connection to one another.

Web developers, designers & managers

Designs templates. Manages the CMS. Trains editors. Complies with accessibility, security, branding policies.

This group is generally responsible for creating templates, managing the content management system, and training website editors on how to update their websites. They tend to be embedded in either marketing or IT organizations, though they may occasionally report directly to a dean or other leadership. Their primary role in the current ecosystem is to facilitate website owners and editors while balancing their own workload, resources, and policy compliance.

Website owners

Appoints editors. Delegates web work to editors. Makes final decisions on content and structure.

For academic websites, website owners are usually deans, chairs, and directors of academic organizations within the university. Within the current ecosystem, they are usually the final authority on the structure of their websites. Sometimes this includes directing the visual design and layout of the website within the templates provided by the web developer group, but most frequently it means they determine their website's information architecture and content—or they delegate those decisions to faculty committees or individual website editors.

Website editors

Updates content. Creates new content. Maintains images, links, and files. Works within template and CMS provided by web developers.

Sometimes this group overlaps with the website owner group. However, most often, this group is comprised of office and administrative assistants within the department that owns the website—with the occasional graduate student. Sometimes they operate independently with little guidance from an owner, while others may only perform web-related tasks at the direction of the website owner. Their knowledge and skills on web, design, and content varies widely.

Website users

Overwhelmingly students. Uses websites to gather information and complete tasks. Visits website with specific goals in mind.

The primary users of UNT's academic websites are students, both prospective and current. The siloed nature of the website ecosystem combined with a lack of accountability for measuring if the websites meet student's needs can result in a disjointed and confusing experience—students are usually unaware of the organizational structure of the university or its jargon.[12]

“Typically, stakeholder goals are only achieved when users can accomplish whatever it is that brought them to the site in the first place.” [13]

Misalignment of goals creates pain points for everyone

People visit websites to get something done

Why do people visit websites? Jakob Nielsen wrote in 1999 that website visitors "want immediate support for their own goals. Even so, most websites are slow, internally-driven, and do not focus on solving the users' problems."[14]

In another article, Nielsen describes how the web is different from other traditional marketing mediums like TV and print: "[The Web] is a user-driven experience, where the user is actively engaged in determining where to go next. The user is usually on the Web for a purpose and is not likely to be distracted from the goal by an advertisement (banner blindness is one of the main reasons click-through is so low). This active user engagement makes the Web more cognitive, since the user has to think about what hypertext links to click and how to navigate. This again makes the Web less suited for purely emotional advertising. The user is not on the Web to ‘get an experience’ but to get something done. The Web is not simply a ‘customer-oriented’ medium; it's a customer-dominated medium."[15]

Departments create websites to promote themselves

In contrast to this, academic departments create and maintain their websites most often as a way of promoting not only their degree programs, but their accomplishments, news, events, research, donors, and additional internally-focused concerns. Unfortunately, it's common for all kinds of businesses—not just universities—to misunderstand how the interactive nature of the web shapes how people use it.

The vast majority of visitors to UNT's academic websites are not visiting to read departmental news, view faculty and student accomplishments, or otherwise be overtly marketed to. Do not mistake this as an argument that these concerns are unimportant. Effective branding, promotion, and storytelling are important, and when used well, at the right times, in the right places, with the right audiences, they can strengthen the brand of departments and institutions both internally and externally. However, years of analytics on over 50 academic websites at UNT combined with what we know about how people use the web both tell us that visitors almost always ignore this content on the websites. Students aren't going to the website for the reasons the department maintains the website.

Luke Wroblewski describes this as “the gap between what something is and why it exists,” and cautions that the gap widens “when people start to do things for reasons other than the customer.”[16] In other words, the less we align student goals with university goals, the less value we get out of the already limited institutional resources devoted to the websites.

Department vs. student goals

The following groups of quotes are from website owners, website editors, and students using those websites. The first set of quotes are pulled from emails and tickets I've received from both website owners and website editors at UNT. The second set of quotes are pulled from a 2016 intercept survey I conducted on the websites we support—the quotes are from students who were actually using the websites when asked to complete the survey.

Common themes begin to emerge from each group. Departments are often concerned with their image on the web and view their websites as traditional marketing pieces. Students, however, are concerned with gathering information or completing specific tasks related to their goals. These two sets of concerns are frequently at odds with one another.

Departmental concerns

Visual design. Creative freedom. Brand identity. Technology semioticsIn other words, what do the website components communicate? Example: background videos are currently trendy. Therefore having a background video connotes that their website—and by extension, their department—is modern.. Highlighting news, events, and promotions. Anxious about students missing content and how department is perceived.

I would really like our webpage to be visually appealing, as well as user friendly. My hope is that students use it as a hub for all their resources and enjoy using it, but right now I just have it in list format. I was hoping the picture icons and interactive component could give it a creative quality.”

[Our faculty] want to be proud of our site.”

I am trying to update [our website], but I'm pretty limited in what I can do. [...] I would also like to know if I can take some creative liberties.”

I would like to point to [a website] that has a ‘news’ option that I would LOVE to see as a layout. [...] Do you think we could have something like this?”

[We] have an awesome video we would like to add to our site. Where would be the best place to add this to our [website] and how would I go about doing this?”

Is there going to be a way for us to have a slide show on our front page? We would really benefit from that given that our programs are so visually based.”

What I don't like [about the UNT template] is having so much content below the fold. I'm concerned that readers won't scroll down far enough, or that they won't click through to the information they need.”

We are attempting to make our website a bit more user friendly, and would like for the following adjustments to be made, please. 1. [...] Enable an actual calendar to show the events [...] We [also] want an archive of events. 2. Would you please enable the ability to archive stories? [...] 3. Lastly, please, enable video to be used in [these pages.] Thank you in advance for [...] making our efforts to attract, engage, and inspire students happen.”

[Our director] would like to be able to add something at the top of the front page of our website that alerts visitors about a major upcoming event we have.”

We would like to know if it's possible to move our news section up so that it's [...] above all the white boxes with the program info on it [on the home page].”

Student concerns

Course descriptions. Degrees offered. Advising. Contact info. Useful, accurate, and up-to-date academic content. Frustrated by searching for info amidst visuals, promotions, multiple sites, and other irrelevant content.

Too much visual [information] such as photos—all this visual info is irrelevant—[the website needs] to allow people to easily get to the point. Very difficult to use and find info. Too many layers to go through to find what I'm looking for.”

I want to quickly and easily find information without looking at tons of meaningless photographs and without going through multiple layers.”

Why on earth is it not updated with summer hours? Seems like it is designed to look flashy. Doesn't appear functional.”

Just difficult to maneuver through to find what I needed. Would love PDF documents with [lists] of courses needed with [descriptions].”

I cannot find a list of classes for the different choices.”

[I was trying but could not find] what programs are offered.”

[The most important feature to me is] up-to-date information.”

UNT has the worst website imaginable. [I was] just trying to find a course description.”

[I was] trying to see degree plans for various combinations of selections.”

[I could not find] which audit was required if I'm just changing majors.”

[I wanted to learn about] careers I can get through [this degree program] other than academia, or just career opportunities in general.”

What the department offers, news, how to schedule advising, and a step by step list for graduate students so they stay on track throughout their program [are most important to me].”

“Clear content, simple navigation and answers to customer questions have the biggest impact on business value. Advanced technology matters much less. [...] Average users just want to complete tasks online.” [17]

Which pages people visit vs. which pages departments work on

The following data is a year's worth of analytics from one of UNT's college websites. It's another salient example of misaligned goals between departments and students: it shows the amount of effort spent on certain types of web pages compared with the most frequently visited pages.

While there are potential flaws with this comparison—some types of content may need less editing regardless of how much they're used, and page hits are not a direct indication of business value—it's still a useful illustration of this misalignment between the effort universities spend on their websites with what students actually do on those websites.

% of total times a page was visited
% of total times a page was created or edited
1 college website / 146,183 total page views / 204 total page edits
Advising pages iThis collection of pages contain information about how to schedule advising appointments, who the advisors are, what they can help with, hours of operation and availability, and contact information.
41% of page views
7% of page edits
Home page iThis home page contains links to different sections of the site and latest news headlines.
Department info pages iThis collection of pages lists the departments in this college and provides links to those departments' websites.
Scholarship pages & forms iThis collection of pages describes what scholarships are available in this college and how to apply to them.
Degree info pages iThis collection of pages lists the degree programs offered in the college, with brief descriptions and links to the appropriate department websites.
People directory pages iThese pages list the people in the dean's office.
News pages iThese are all of the individual news pages and posts combined, not just the overall news page or section.

7% is also much higher than most academic websites—most are around 1% to 2% for their news posts. I speculate this college's higher-than-average percentage is because this college has a dedicated marketing specialist who understands digital marketing and uses social media well to drive traffic to these pages.

90% of this traffic is directed from another channel, like social or email—in other words, users do not organically browse to news posts when visiting the site. Additionally, approximately half of the traffic that views news is at UNT when they view it.
About us pages iThis collection of pages contain information about how to donate, the college's governance, and its advisory board.
Faculty resource pages iThis collection of pages contains information related to research funding, travel grants, and tenure-track review.
Events pages iThese are all of the individual event posts combined. They are mostly presentations, seminars, and lectures from faculty.
< 0%

User research

Let's focus on website owners

By exploring the current website ecosystem at UNT and the roles within it, website owners emerged as a focal point. Given that website owners are usually the final authority on what content is on their websites—not the developers or editors—it's vital to understand their goals, needs, motivations, and behaviors to get a clearer picture of the problem we're trying to address.

The following section contains personas and describes the experience of creating and owning an academic website. The intent of this user research is to identify alignment between what motivates website owners and what methods could improve the current ecosystem and culture, constraints and all.


2 types of personas: outcome-focused and identity-focused

I crafted the following website owner personas by reviewing a decade of emails and communication with them in my role as Senior Web Manager at UNT, as well as piecing together information from conversations and informal interviews from various roles within the university. Since many website owners are department chairs, I supplemented my knowledge by reading chair handbooks from a variety of universities to get a better sense of their responsibilities and pressures.

Two main types of personas unfolded: outcome-focused owners and identity-focused owners. These personas are amalgamations—they are not representative of any one department. Instead, they represent observed common sets of motivations and behaviors.

Outcome-focused owners typically sense that their websites are tools that can achieve specific business goals, but they may or may not truly align their website's value with student goals. Identity-focused owners perceive their websites as a method of conveying the character or brand of their department, often as a well-intentioned method of recruitment. Both personas usually view their websites as promotional channels above all else.

Administrative assistants often play a key role, too

It's important to note that while the following two personas are department chairs, it's not uncommon for a chair to delegate all responsibility to their website editor—usually an administrative assistant in the department. This editor-in-lieu-of-owner comes with their own set of needs, motivations, and behaviors which should be explored in future research.

The “Outcome” Site Owner

Dr. Margaret Crawford, 54
PhD from the University of Chicago, 1999
Department chair

“You’re telling me that less than 1% of traffic looks at our news posts. How do we make sure the right people know what’s happening in our department?


Pain points

Behaviors & beliefs

The “Identity” Site Owner

Dr. Daniel Roman, 51
PhD from the University of Texas, 1995
Department chair

“Our website needs to reflect who we are as a department. We need to ‘wow’ students, get them excited. It’s important that we put our best foot forward to help us with recruitment.


Pain points

Behaviors & beliefs

The experience of owning a website

Key steps are missing in website creation & maintenance

The current experience of owning and editing an academic website within UNT is missing some crucial steps. Most often, websites are wanted, created, and edited without fully researching or understanding either audience needs or what organizational goals websites fulfill best.

The personas outlined in the previous section—Dr. Crawford, Dr. Roman, and their administrative assistants—work on their websites with the best of intentions, but are frequently unaware of the impact of their decisions. Our personas may be interested in doing these missing steps, but they're most likely unable to devote time or resources to making those steps happen.

Step 1: Want a website

  • Wanting a website is usually driven by the need to promote a department, program, event, or initiative. Sometimes it's in response to a university or college strategic goal, such as connect faculty to more funding resources. Sometimes it may be driven by desiring more autonomy over the tools, visual design, or structure of an existing website.

Missing step: Research audience & business needs

  • Many website owners only view their website as a promotional tool without understanding how and why people may use their website—or if a website is the best way to accomplish their goals. Some departments may conduct surveys with faculty, staff, or students, but little to no in-depth research is performed. If feedback is gathered, it's commonly framed around asking students what features they want, which is a flawed approach.[20]

Step 2: Create the website

  • The experience of creating a website within the current ecosystem sometimes mirrors the disjointed, confusing experience of students browsing the websites: web developers and web resources are within their own silos. Once connected with the right resources, website owners and editors are given a templated website to operate within. Sometimes they're trained how to do this, but not always.

Missing step: Define success & measurable goals

  • Success is rarely defined or measured in terms of business value like increased scholarship applications by 10%. When success is defined, it's often framed around internal perceptions of success, such as added 20 news posts this semester or presented the department's brand well.

Step 3: Make updates or request changes

  • The website's content is updated as desired or when prompted by some external factor, like reports of broken links. Updates are usually restricted to the content on the website, but owners and editors may also request assistance if they aren't sure how to make a change or want something beyond the template they're provided.

Missing step: Evaluate impact & iterate to improve

  • Since success is rarely defined or measured, the website's impact is rarely evaluated. Without this evaluation, departments are unable to understand if their website is meeting their visitor's goals effectively. If attempts to iterate on and improve the website are made, they frequently rely on common misconceptions like move the content above the fold or focus on increasing the visibility of promotional content like news or events.

Create an onboarding process

Align goals within the existing ecosystem

Given the current constraints on funding and staffing, I propose creating an onboarding-style process that centers goal-setting. This method's intent is to set expectations on an academic website's true business value—to shift UNT's culture away from viewing websites as subjectively successful promotional channels and instead view websites as business-critical, student-centric tools that aid in student recruitment, retention, and graduation. In this way, we may begin finding better alignment between department website goals and student needs.

Why an onboarding process?

While we typically associate onboarding with orienting new employees, it can be a powerful tool in influencing organizational culture for existing employees when they enter a new role—say, becoming the new owner of an existing website—or when they begin a new project. Good onboarding processes clearly define expectations, roles, and objectives as a way of ensuring employees are performing their jobs well. They can also be a “source of competitive advantage,” due to ensuring “employees have the knowledge and skills that add value to the organization.”[21] In other words, an onboarding process for website owners could help them better define their own website objectives—such as “recruit more graduate students”—while providing targeted education and recommendations based on those objectives—such as “include faculty's research interest areas on graduate program pages.”

Potential barriers, objections, & constraints

Designing and implementing a goal-setting onboarding process is not without its own potential problems. This proposed solution is more akin to a bandaid that attempts to positively influence UNT's culture surrounding its websites without the need for significant additional resources or a restructure of the ecosystem—it does not address:

Additionally, website owners may not buy into this onboarding process if it does not adequately empathize with their motivations and concerns. Even if they do buy in to the process, they may not agree on the proposed goals or recommendations, or they may continue to conflate their own website desires with student needs. Plus, while it would not require significant resources, someone would still need to maintain this onboarding process over time.

There may also be other barriers, objections, or constraints that I have not identified here, given the scope of this research and proposal.

User flow via low-fidelity prototype

What the onboarding experience could look like

The following low-fidelity screens show the general user flow of the proposed onboarding process. Broadly speaking, the system attempts to figure out where they are in the process of owning a website—new or existing—then gets them to set their academic website's goals. Once goals are selected, the owner is presented with a list of recommendations for each goal with actionable next steps. This low-fidelity prototype was created in Balsamiq.

First: new or existing website?

Ideally, this onboarding process would become an on-going review process. While the focus of this proposal is on new websites, this system could potentially help departments review their previously defined goals, adjust as necessary, and iterate on their websites.

Immediately ask about goals

The process should be perceived as simple as possible to encourage use. Therefore, before anything else, the goal-setting action should happen immediately. Additionally, it should be easy to scan and address any potential roadblocks to completion by answering common questions or objections.

Limit selection of goals

Encourage setting priorities by limiting the selection of goals. This begins to reframe websites from being all things to all audiences into understanding that effective websites prioritize some content and functionality over others.

Confirm the goals, set expectations

Have the website owner confirm their goals. Additionally, set expectations for what comes next so they understand where they are in the process and why they're setting these goals.

Capture who they are & what website

For new websites, gather this information near the end of the process. This would ideally help verify two things: if this is the right person to set these goals, and if goals have already been defined for this website. This may not be the right approach, but this step in the user flow represents the need to document this process.

Show recommendations, with plenty of offers of assistance & next steps

Recommendations should be given per goal, and they should be as concise and actionable as possible. The idea here is to help the owner prioritize their limited time and resources toward these goals. Provide links to research or evidence should the reader require more persuasion. Explain how the success of these goals could be measured. Finally, provide plenty of opportunities for acting on these recommendations via clear calls to schedule consultations, forward the recommendations to an editor, or set up an on-going review plan.

High-fidelity prototype

Begins to realistically address copy and interactions

As the low-fidelity prototype and the overall user flow evolved, I moved onto developing a higher-fidelity prototype in parallel. This forced me to consider the experience of individual screens—how elements are laid out, what actions the copy should facilitate, and how the actual interactions might work in a real system. As this version evolves, it should ideally be tested with both website owners and website editors to pinpoint potential problems with the design.

Screenshot of prototype landing page.

Figure 1 The landing page of this prototype accounts for both new websites and existing websites. The language and layout is simple in an attempt to make it seem easy and quick to do. In future work, separate landing pages for new websites and existing websites could be built to better accommodate each audience.

Figure 2 The instructions and form are horizontally divided in an attempt to keep the form the main focus. Goals are divided up into groups with headings to facilitate scanning—and to prime the user to think about their website in the context of common departmental goals instead of what they want it to look like or convey.

Figure 3 As seen in the low-fidelity prototype, the ability to select goals is limited to 3 choices. The visual and interaction design here attempts to make it clear the choices are limited via greying out and disabling the other options once 3 goals have been selected.

Figure 4 The confirmation page uses the same structure as the goal-selection page to reinforce their relation to one another. It's simple, with plenty of negative space so the focus remains on the goals themselves. Some of the language could be tweaked here to say your instead of our to make the content more direct.

“The right question isn’t ‘Do I like it?’ but ‘Does this meet our goals?’ If it’s blue, don’t ask yourself whether you like blue. Ask yourself if blue will help you sell sprockets.” [22]


Summary and key takeaways

This proposal identified reasons that lead to poor university website experiences, and why that matters for both students and universities. It explored the current ecosystem of academic websites at UNT, as well as the major groups within this ecosystem and their relationships with one another. It also identified misalignment of website goals between departments and students as a key factor: departments want to promote themselves, while students want to gather info and complete tasks.

From there, the proposal honed in on website owners as the key group that most influences website purpose, content, and structure within the current ecosystem. Website owners' motivations and behaviors were further explored via two personas that view their websites as promotional channels through two separate lenses—an “outcome-focused” persona and an “identity-focused” persona. The current experience of creating and owning an academic website at UNT was described, alongside missing key actions at each step.

Next, the proposal identified an onboarding-style process as a possible effective approach to improving students' experiences within UNT's existing website ecosystem. While there are potential problems with this approach, it may still help positively influence the culture surrounding academic websites if it adequately addresses website owners' needs, wants, and concerns.

A potential user flow was explored via low-fidelity prototyping that walked through the process of setting goals and receiving actionable recommendations in return. Finally, delving into a higher-fidelity prototype exposed the real-world interactive and content details that would need further research and development.

Next steps and future research

“It is a huge mistake to treat the web as if it were an online brochure and manage it out of the marcom department. The web should be considered one of the most important determinants for the way you will do business in the future.” [23]

About Michele

Michele is passionate about making websites better and increasing design maturity within universities. She currently works at the University of North Texas as Senior Web Manager, leading a team that designs, develops, and administers web services for some of the university’s largest colleges.

Over the last 10 years, she has advocated for accessible, human-centered design for 100+ websites. She has deep experience in multiple aspects of creating websites, including visual design, copywriting, information architecture, front-end development, back-end development, and design research. She also has multiple years of experience in people, project, and stakeholder management.

Michele has a Bachelor's in Information Technology from UNT. She recently completed her Master's in Interaction & User Experience Design, also from UNT, with the intent to make the web a better, more useful place.

References & further reading

  1. Katie Sherwin. "University Websites: Top 10 Design Guidelines." Nielsen Norman Group. 2016. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/university-sites/
  2. Zehra Yerlikaya & Pınar Onay Durdu. "Usability of University Websites: A Systematic Review." Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction, Design and Development Approaches and Methods. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58706-6_22
  3. Melonie Fullick. "University websites: The so-so, the bad, and the egregious." University Affairs. 2016. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/speculative-diction/university-websites-bad-egregious/
  4. Randall Munroe. "University Website." xkcd. https://xkcd.com/773/
  5. Tania Lang. "UX of university websites: Usability issues." PeakXD. 2015. https://www.peakxd.com.au/articles/ux-of-university-websites-usability-issues/
  6. Bailey Lewis. "The Worst Content Mistakes Higher Education Websites Make and What to Do About Them." truematter. 2019. https://blog.truematter.com/2019/worst-content-mistakes-higher-education-websites-make/
  7. "Any genuine reason behind how bad college websites are?" Discussion post on Reddit. 2016. https://www.reddit.com/r/college/comments/4urxn8/any_genu...
  8. Peter Collins. "Why are university websites so bad?" Web Usability. 2013. https://info.webusability.co.uk/blog/usability-expert-advice/why-are-university-web-sites-so-bad
  9. Claudia Civinini. "Study profiles behaviour of stealth applicants." The PIE News. 2019. https://thepienews.com/news/institutional-sites-crucial-to-recruitment-uniquest/
  10. Michele Hindman. "When University Websites Fail: How Decentralized Design Accountability Impacts Students, Faculty, Staff, and Institutions." 2019.
  11. Melvin Conway. “How Do Committees Invent?” Datamation 14, no. 4: 28–31. 1968. http://www.melconway.com/Home/Committees_Paper.html
  12. Andy Johnston. "One surprising barrier to college success: Dense higher education lingo." The Hechinger Report. 2019. https://hechingerreport.org/one-surprising-barrier-to-success-in-college-understanding-higher-education-lingo/
  13. Ross Johnson. "Designing for Users and Stakeholders." 3.7 Designs. 2015. https://3.7designs.co/blog/2015/08/designing-for-users-and-stakeholders/
  14. Jakob Nielsen. "Web Research: Believe the Data." Nielsen Norman Group. 1999. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/web-research-believe-the-data/
  15. Jakob Nielsen. "Why Advertising Doesn't Work on the Web." Nielsen Norman Group. 1997. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-advertising-doesnt-work-on-the-web/
  16. Luke Wroblewski. "Mind the gap, user centered design in large organizations with Luke Wroblewski." Presentation at Google Conversion Summit 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAiNdU1go1A
  17. Jakob Nielsen. "Growing a Business Website: Fix the Basics First." Nielsen Norman Group. 2006. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-priorities/
  18. Joshua Porter. "Testing the Three-Click Rule." UIE. 2003. https://articles.uie.com/three_click_rule/
  19. Rob Lafratta. Above the fold is a myth. http://abovethefold.fyi/
  20. Zoltán Gócza & Zoltán Kollin. "Myth #21: People can tell you what they want." UX Myths. 2015. https://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-you-what-they-want
  21. Alan Saks & Jamie A. Gruman. "Making organizations more effective through organizational socialization." Journal of Organizational Effectiveness vol. 1, iss. 3: 261–280. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-07-2014-0036
  22. Mike Monteiro. You're My Favorite Client. 2014.
  23. Jakob Nielsen. "Top 10 Mistakes of Web Management." Nielsen Norman Group. 1997. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/top-10-mistakes-of-web-management/