We at the Foundation have been wanting to implement a maroon version of the header to signify that we are related to the University but are seperate. If maroon headers are adopted in other places, we'd like to know so we can develop a new visual cue.

Having said that -- I like the new direction. It seems cleaner, for some reason. Way to go!

Stacy Holmstedt ::  kipper@asu.edu

I like the direction of the new header. I prefer the deeper gold to the pale version. I also think the ASU logo could be increased just slightly. It seems a bit smaller when compared to the versions using endorsed ASU logos.

Slide #7 (or #3 – essentially the same). I like the darker gold, but definitely not the gradient, and NOT the maroon in the header.

--

John
Student Affairs/West

I prefer Slide 7. Here's why:

-I believe the solid gold header strengthens the ASU brand. The purpose of the gradient is to give more color variations for pages with more natural or “muted” gold backgrounds. However, when browsing ASU departmental pages, I really have a hard time finding pages with natural backgrounds. Mostly, pages have either a white, black or dark grey background. I think the solid gold color in the header complements those other colors more so than a gradient. Moreover, having one color simplifies the top area of the page and puts more emphasis on the main content area. In the end, we want students (and faculty/staff) to get to the content of our site, not the header. Since we are proposing to add more content in the actual header, anything we can do to simplify that region significantly will help our users. If anyone has other reasoning for why they believe the gradient works, I would love to hear it! :)

-Secondly, the search dropdown makes a lot of sense for our users. I constantly find confusion within the ASU search utility. It seems rather inconsistent as to whether or not that search box will return results from the page you’re on, or the ASU google search appliance. The dropdown instantly clears that confusion. The magnifying glass gets the point across, lessens the clutter in the header and removes the need to put the word “search” in again.

-I really like that the sunburst graphic was moved to the left-side of the browser. The repeated shape and lighter color behind the logo really makes the logo stand out.

-The only change I would make to Slide 7 would be to incorporate the maroon “Sign In” information above the search bar from Slide 1. From a security standpoint, it’s highly important to remind our users that they are logged in, so they don’t walk away from a computer while they are still authenticated. Having this information appear in maroon makes it seem as important as the logo, since the logo is the only other maroon element on the page. It also makes the experience of browsing the ASU Web seem more personal when your name is so prominent.

I would definitely advise against the implementation of a secondary maroon header. Nina has some great points in “Silence is no longer golden.” Gold is ASU. There’s a lot to be said for the color. Since we are trying to implement a consistent web presence, I can see no value in adding a secondary color.

I suppose that’s all I wanted to get at for now. I’ll repost if I think of anything else. And, please, send in any feedback anyone has. We can’t make a fantastic experience unless we work out all the kinks. :)

Tanner
USI Technology Services

Update: I should probably mention that I am affiliated to ASU as both Classified Staff and full-time student.

I vote for the gold, quel surprise, with the dropdown.

When i see the sunburst maroon it makes me think of the end of the world as decribed in the book of revelations. I know it says the moon is red and the sun is black, but it still comes to mind. Or maybe this section of the star cycle. It's maybe too late in the star cycle for our young university to be there.

I would concur: Slides 7 or 8. For our Center, Slide 8 makes more sense. We have only two search options (ASU and Local), so a drop-down is less attractive. The radio button advertises to all that there is a local search function. The drop-down buries it.

I prefer the solid gold header and radio buttons for search, for the same reason devansro said. I think that makes slide #8 my preference. I think the gradient version of it is fine, though, as it does a good job of separating the global nav from the search box - so it's certainly good.

Great job so far. I especially like the completely removal of the maroon bar. It really cleans things up and makes it clear to the user that those links are not site-specific.

I really wish I could give a better reason for the header gradient than "it's pretty", but that's really my only argument. I absolutely love the gradient from an esthetic standpoint, but Tanner is right: we're diluting the brand in favor of trying appease the whole of the academic units and content owners. Still, that's a valid impetus in itself. If a softer header promotes buy-in from the entire University, maybe it's a fair compromise.

Personally, I like Slide 2 for the gold gradient and the simplicity in search. If the GSA does its job, we shouldn't need site-specific search on the page, correct? Maybe I don't know enough about the GSA, but in an ideal world, the user would type their search term(s) into one box and be presented with the most relevant information on the ASU Web, regardless of which domain happens to hourse that information.

I also like the bold maroon for the SIGN IN links. We're moving closer to a more authentication-based model of serving content, and our users will have to rely increasingly on being signed in to get the information they need. Let's make their name and personalized links as prominent as possible.

Hello all,

• Header - deep gold, I agree. I have seen some of the gradient headers start to look washed out at times (depending on environment, projecting image on large screen, browser, etc.). Prefer the gold to the maroon header since the sunburst looks a bit odd with maroon, it may look better as a solid maroon without sunburst if that is an option.
• Footer -
  • I think the footer in a few of these comps is taking up way too much real estate and throwing off the balance of the page. A solution would be to string the content (page contact/owner info) into 2-3 lines. We have developed a standard footer for some of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences sites: see fms.asu.edu and shesc.asu.edu for examples. Note which items are linked. This format may be an option to consider ASU-wide.
  • Relocation of black footer bar. I understand the idea of putting ASU-wide mandated items into a clear design structure (header at very top with footer at very bottom to define the inner area as open to the unit's creativity). However, it has also been common practice across Web sites globally to have page contact info as the last info given on the page. In this case, I think following a global standard would trump the other. Something to consider: will moving the black bar info lead users to hit the 'contact ASU' button instead of the page owner contact button? Quite possibly. If the bar is relocated, I think it should default to the same black bar with the option for units to alter the color to fit their design theme as needed. Keeping the bar adds some balance to the page and would set it apart from the page contact info.
  • Search options - I think having radio buttons that show the user that they have the option of choosing to search "ASU" or "This Site" right up front is better than the drop down option which requires another step for the user.

 Good work all! Rita

First, I prefer the solid gold versions. I think it gives more consistency to what is already in place, and has a stronger connection to the ASU brand – it feels like ASU to me. The gradient version is dramatic, but I personally think it compromises the ASU-ness.

As for the maroon version – not a big fan. I will admit that I didn’t originally like the current gold look for the header, and actually preferred something with maroon. But, I have really gotten to appreciate the clean simple look. It is bold, but depending on how the space is developed below, it is not overpowering.

As a creative person, I can appreciate the desire to want to have a look all of your own. But, the header is just the roof over our heads, the sense of location. You can create a personalized space by painting the walls however you want – you don’t have to rebuild the house from scratch.

I don’t think there should be alternate versions available for use. The bottom line is that we need to create a great online experience for our users, whoever they may be. If we change the look for every unit, then we are diluting the overall ASU experience.

I like the solid gold as well. I'm also glad the maroon bar is gone as it was breaking up the page in too many sections; same goes with the black bar on the footer. Chris I agree with you on the search bar; the simpler the better. The don't make me think book has the word "search" in a box; but I think it has ample room for whatever the "search" committee decides to implement. So I guess that would be #7 (minus sunburst) and #2 for the search.

I'm not a big fan of the sunburst and gradient as it limits the design options. I think with a solid, I could still create a gradient and connect it to the solid, but as a gradient, stopping at a solid, to me does not give a reason for it to be a gradient because the hard edges clashes with the soft edges. To me a good gradient design is one with no apparent edges (like back in the art school days of pencil shading or pen and ink cross hatching).

The sunburst is also distracting to me and it takes away from the logo as if to say, you're not strong enough by yourself. Some might feel that way, but with the sunburst there, to me, it's absolutely stating that the logo needs a burst of help. From a technical point of view, all the endorsed logos need to be created with a sunburst background as one artwork or as a transparent gif with the light yellow as a matte, which could create a light yellow halo where it crosses the dark yellow.

Having a plain option there gives plenty of room for design options, while also not taking away from the navigation and logo. A few options of content design to match the header could be extending the yellow as an odd shape right below it or extending a gradient from a white to the solid yellow giving the appearance that you've created a gradient in your header even though the gradient is below it, etc.

Whatever the decision however, I think the adjustments have added a lot more flexibility to design around it.

I’m writing to attempt to steer the debate about the universal headers away from a favorite color debate. The larger issue that I’d like to explore is whether it is beneficial for a university and web site of this size, magnitude and complexity to attempt to standardize a single colored header across a very diverse and rich institution.

Gold is good, heck I even like gold.  The standard gold header atop the ASU core pages is a wonderful step in the right direction.  I further believe that the Rev 2.0 project is also successfully addressing the main concerns with the current ASU headers, namely the lack of unified top level navigation, standardizing the search functionality and mandating common visual elements to signify to users that the pages all belong under the same jurisdiction. The issue I’d like to address is whether standardizing a single color actually strengthens the brand of ASU.  This may be argued that it strengthens our identity of One University in many places, but ASU is also a multi faceted and deeply enriching institution that spans across many different academic branches and through a myriad of centers and departments that work closely with the university and the community.  Wouldn’t this part of our identity be lost in a large web site where everything is standardized? 

This issue further raises the fundamental question of who is responsible for branding at ASU on college and department levels.  Michael Crow has actively encouraged the individual colleges to brand themselves through the use of donations and naming rights, see Ira A. Fulton, Herberger, Sandra Day O’Connor, W. P. Carey, etc.  The colleges have been tasked to individualize and strengthen their own brands and to strive towards self sufficiency.  A large part of this is done by strengthening the brand name.  Aren’t we undercutting this initiative if we enforce a single primary color across all ASU web pages?

I understand the argument that this is only the header and footer that are being discussed and the middle of the pages will be left up to the various colleges and departments to maintain.  In fact, if the color of the header and footer is mandated, it significantly lessens the secondary color palette that can be used in conjunction with the header.  It will create an effect of whitewashing the university website in a white and gold brush.  Is this really the desire of ASU?

Wouldn’t a stronger push by ASU be to standardized the layouts, navigation, and search functionality but open up the header to allow the different primary colors of the institution?  Wouldn’t we want to showcase the diversity and enrichment of the ASU experience?  Isn’t this currently the standard of major websites?  I haven’t found a single large university that mandates a single header across all core pages, college pages, center pages, etc.   Further research into large website, like ESPN or CNN, shows they display diversity within their major subsections by changing the header. 

My opinion would be to standardize the navigation, search box, and the major components of the header (the placement of ASU’s logo, the use of the sunburst, etc.) but to provide the headers in at least the primary colors ASU lays out in their communication guide (maroon, gold and gray).

I have nothing against gold and think the ASU core pages have been recently enhanced by the use of the new header.  I don’t see the issue in debating the strengths of this color over that color.  I do see the value in making sure we are looking at ASU as a whole, even as complex and diverse as it is, and making sure we are in fact doing what is best for the university.

 - Bobby Gray

I think Bobby just "owned" the dialogue (that's what all the kids are saying, right?). To be serious, though, I think he's justified in questioning the origin of each School's distinct identity. It's no accident that W. P. Carey, Fulton and others ended up taking such a wide departure from the overall ASU brand. Was this indeed encouraged by President Crow? Regardless, the question of the moment is whether they can maintain those independent identities while the bulk of their Web content is stuck underneath a header that looks like every other page in ASU's online presence. This, of course, is something I'm horribly underqualified to even attempt to answer, so I'll leave it to the pros...

As long as we're citing references, ESPN and CNN are good comparisons, but the model that I'm told we're following is Amazon. I've heard countless arguments in favor of moving toward a comprehensive template that never varies among the hundreds of thousands of pages we host. But even Amazon separates some of its initiatives by giving them recognizable interfaces. Compare, for instance, the "Camera & Photo" page to "Your Media Library". Yes, they're two entirely separate aspects of Amazon's services, but they're still under Amazon. If we translate the preceeding example to the ASU Web, it's possible to interpret the "Camera & Photo" page (a retail department) as the Core (Directory, Interactive, etc.) while "Your Media Library" more closely represents Colleges and Schools - things that look roughly like the umbrella under which they reside, but are simultaneoulsly distinguishable on a fundamental level (header and color scheme).

It's possible that I'm not seeing the whole picture. So, if anyone observes serious flaws in my logic, be a dear and point them out. Thanks.

At first looking at the comps I strongly sided with Chris, I am a sucker for a gradient to the point of excess.  So I came to the forums with slide 9's banner and the minimal footer of 7.  After reading the two cents of many here I must concede that the solid banner makes better sense universally, so 7 it is.

For 'search' I must side with the radio button(local and 'all asu') -- My take is that those options are better left on the search utility page rather than clutter the banner area, plus I've searched in one to many tech forums that had a bagillion options on the search.  Google does it right.

Tanner makes excellent points on keeping the login notice at the top, in a very visable spot.

One note though, Chris.  In your amazon analogy, amazon's sole purpose is for us to add items to their cart.  Across the university the audience and purpose of each site differs greatly.  Even with this in mind I believe, as the review commitee identified, that having a singular header solidifed identity across the many subsidiaries, without imposing a limiting design infuence on the the rest of the page. I think this banner does a good job of that.  Even if it is yellow... (completely kidding Nina)

Cheers,

Gregg 

gt @ biodesign institute

I like the look of Web 2.0 Header/Footer and strongly support the goal of achieving a consistent ASU look and feel on the web. However, I  do have a concern.

The college units will lose space at the top of the template as well as homogenizing navigation in the lefthand column. How much room will there be for creativity in the main content space (i.e., graphics and text)?

Terry Olbrysh, College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation

@Terry: What is added to the space between the header and footer is currently, and will continue to be, completely customizable. When the new template is released, there will likely be suggestions for site-specific navigation as well as other common design conventions (keep watching the Web Community and template.asu.edu), but they'll be suggestions only, and each academic unit is free to ignore or override them.

I'm not sure I understand your concern about losing space at the top of the template. Are you referring to the fact that endorsed logos (such as yours) will be squeezed into a smaller header with less padding on each side (top/bottom) of the logo?

Tanner,

It makes sense and avoids confusion to assimilate the look and feel of ASU.  I personally don’t see the need for ‘Parking and Transit’ to have a different header than ‘Student Services’ because they provide a service that serves the ASU whole.  However, individual colleges with endorsed brands need to be able to strengthen and support those individual brands.

In response to ‘ASU is ASU’, there are certain highly specialized and competitive markets where a student is not coming to ASU because it is ASU – but rather because of the reputation built by the brand of a specific degree (what comes to mind initially is MBA and law degrees but I’m sure there are many others).  In the MBA field, the pre-eminent institutions brand based upon the strengths of the college more so than the university.  A review of the top 10 business school reveal ‘Wharton’ (Penn), ‘Sloan’ (MIT), ‘Kellogg’ (Northwestern), ‘Tuck’ (Dartmouth), ‘Hass’ (Berkeley) and ‘Stern’ (NYU).    In each of these cases the college is branded ahead of the university.  Our mission is to create a ‘top of mind’ business school and compete with the elite of the field.  Our ability to do so is weakened if we are locked into an ASU branding scheme and guideline and not allow to strength our individual brand which was built over a long period of time to compete in this field.  This is just one instance but I’m sure there are others. 

 -- Bobby

Lets focus some on the design itself for a minute.  I love the new look and am very glad to see the university move the idea of standards forward.  I do have some concerns with these design I would like to discuss.  I am 100% behind the solid colored header (specific color is another discussion) and moving the "universal" navigation to the top of the page.

Lets talk first about the starburst.  Moving the startburst to the left I believe causes the logo to become less, cluttered, and make the left very busy.  I like the starburst on the right, it balances the top and let the eye float between both sides.

The "universal" navigation.  I would suggest we change "Directory" or "ASU Directory" to "ASU People".  This is much clearer to "outsider" of ASU.  A directory can easily be mistaken for directory of pages.  I also think we should be think hard about what pages its appropiate to have "colleges and Schools" on.  Since we are trying to provide global navigation, when a user is on any 'non academic' site (or core pages), getting to a college or school page is a very important.  But, when a user is on college X's site, are there for the most part going to be going to school Y's site.  Probally not. By making the link availiable only on core pages, it provides the users the navigation we want when they need it (as ASU), and on a college site it removes on more navigation (and reduces the site cognitive load) on the user with a link 99.9% will never use.

Scott @ College of Human Services - Webmaster

Love the new header/footer designs (though I realize that as an engineer with no color sense, my opinion, by itself, should carry very little weight :-)

Nevertheless, I think the new designs are terrific...I love this team's work, and clearly so do many others on this forum...

As to the issue of mandating the header and footer on pages outside the Core University Website (such as the College pages), I would hate to see the issue of standardizing on the header and footer cause conflict. There is still so much work to do on the Core University site -- where the standardized header and footer will be implemented as a mater of course. As the Core site continues to be refined, more and more of the most trafficed areas will thus be consistently branded and presented.

In the meantime, I am confident that web developers creating content for individual Colleges, Schools, Research programs and the like will thoughtfully consider the merits of the standard header and footer, and many will move to adopt it. I would also hope that many of our developers will at the same time consider whether a "new" site, or sub site needs to be created at all, considering instead the possiblibilty that the content they seek to incorporate into the ASU web experience would be better placed as part of an exisiting Core Area. It is far easier to put content in the way of exisiting traffic than it is to generate traffic to a new site.

I doubt we will ever achieve complete consistency throughout the long tail of the ASU site. There are too many pages, and too few resources.

The College presentation issue we should refer to Dr. Capaldi to resolve (or not).

I feel we still have much work yet to go on the Core University Site and we have made so much progress in bringing the information owners together with common purpose, commited to the idea of making a single experience for users instead of a loose confederation of "web sites". Taking advantage of that momentum feels like Job 1 to me.

The most highly trafficked areas (Interactive, A-Z, Directory, the Catalog, the Tour) are making great progress in coherence and functionality and are on a good path, but the most critical processes of the Core University site ([prospective student exploration, application, admission, orientation and enrollment] and [current student registration, progress notification and warning, eAdvising etc]) are still nowhere near the standard we need to set for ourselves. The time to address that is now!

I think the effort we are in the midst of -- creating new versions of the prospective student experience and the current student experience -- is the opportunity to get this right -- by bringing the information and options a current or prospectice student or needs together in a single, coherent presentation

We have good argreement on this and now we need to execute nimbly on that vision.

My two cents offered as a single contributor...Love the energy and passion that you can feel on this discussion

The provost has been briefed on the Web Editorial Board’s and Web Audit Committee’s recommendation to mandate a standard header and footer. The mandate will be formally explored at the next Executive Committee and so far both the president and provost have been in favor of the recommendation.

We are recommending a major shift in thinking— from developing individual Web sites that reside on asu.edu to developing sections of a cohesive ASU Web site. This approach helps us further advance the endorsed branding model, unify the ASU Web presence, and improve the experience for our users.

Inherent to a recommendation like this is sense of conflict and uncertainty. During the process, we continue to be committed to exploring the college and department perspectives. The Web Audit Committee included college- and department-level Web designers and Terri and I are happy to meet with colleges individually to discuss the impact of a standard header and footer. We met with the W. P. Carey School of Business to discuss their circumstance, the impact of a standard header and footer, and how to better integrate our efforts. We will discuss this more at the Web Editorial Board meeting.

I agree with Adrian’s comment that we have a lot of work to do with the core and it is a first priority for the university. However, the quality and consistency of Web sites that reside outside the core needs to improve and this work needs to happen in tandem with core development.

The comments posted in response to the design comps and mandate have provided a lot of insight and I appreciate the quality of the discussion happening in this forum. Thank you for your input and I, like many of the members of the board, look forward to reading any further comments that are posted.

Jill Andrews, Provost Office

Great presentation of possibilities! I've also enjoyed reading all of the comments. I definitely agree that the solid gold makes the cleanest statement about ASU. My unit doesn't have a brand, so slide #3 looks the best to me as long as the radial buttons are used for the search options instead of the drop-down.

As others have commented, the gradient gold seems too washed out. The maroon doesn't appeal to me at all. I also agree that the footer should be as few lines as possible with the local contact info allowed to follow the basic footer so viewers don't get confused about who they're contacting.

Thanks!

It’s great to see the new designs and discussion from the ASU web community. I think that there is an achievable balance between having a corporate identity (university) and an expressing individualism (departments). They can exist on the same web page! Although I am traditional against uniformity, I believe that maintaining a header/footer on university web pages is a good idea as it will increase the overall functionality for the user. There is a whole lot of space in between for departments to express their own unique branding. These new streamlined designs are certainly a step in the right direction.

I like slide #8 the best because of the solid gold header and radio search buttons. However, I prefer the sunburst on the right side as it is now; it adds a design element to the right side that is more text heavy and gives it a better balance. Also, I’d like to see the sign on above the search button as it is in slide 1.

Header:

1. Vertical real estate. 30 more pixels is a great start to minimizing but maintaining the ASU brand to give the departments room to express themselves.

2. Universal Navigation. I am so glad to see this more streamlined. Much improved from the color bar!

3. Search. I like the look of the drop down, but think the radio buttons are more functional because the user can see the options rather than clicking to see the options.

4. Unit Branding. This is a great step in the right direction. I’d like to see departments designing their own identity and branding while incorporating the University’s too.  

5. Color. Solid gold, definitely. I love a gradient, but don’t think it works well here. I don’t hate the maroon though… although the logo doesn’t work as it stands now on the maroon page.