This is mildly off-topic, but I have always had this fantasy that we 
would move away from acronyms and start naming our URLs with actual 
words.  Like http://minnesota.edu.  MCTC just did that a couple years 
ago with http://minneapolis.edu - I don't have any research or anything 
other than my own preference for this, partly because if someone outside 
the system is talking to me and I have to tell them our web address, 
"umn" sounds an awful lot like "umm" or "unn" and such and it's kind of 
frustrating.

But I have no illusions that such a drastic change would happen, 
especially without a public clamoring for it.  Just something I've 
thought about.
S


Peter Wiringa wrote:
> On 1/26/10 4:26 PM, Kristofer Layon wrote:
>> I have some clients' sites on www1, but could happily move them. I can't
>> think of an argument for keeping them there; I'm sure most clients would
>> gladly go to a /name.umn.edu/ domain instead of their current
>> /www1.umn.edu/name/.
>>
>> (though I'm sure, now that I said this, someone would surprise me…)
>
> Actually, I'd be curious to hear what others have experienced in this 
> area. We [very] rarely run into a situation with a central (TC or 
> systemwide) initiative where we can't obtain a name we're hoping for, 
> that really does seem to apply to our situation, because it's already 
> in use by a unit for what may be a very narrow purpose.
>
> It seems like it's in the best interests of some groups to identify 
> with with their ancestors, i.e. the department that offers that basket 
> weaving course might have more clout if their association with their 
> college is clear, and their college might have more clout if the fact 
> they're a part of the U is clear (I believe there's data to support 
> the unit to the U as a whole portion, going back to the brand policy). 
> This could be done on the site and also through the hostname.
>
> Just an example: maps.umn.edu. The interactive side (and eventually 
> the static pages) of the TC campus maps are under 
> campusmaps.umn.edu/tc. We had to avoid www1 for technical 
> considerations, but maps.umn.edu was already taken. Not trying to 
> sound greedy here, and I imagine you (Kris) and some others have come 
> across similar situations, but it seems to me like this is a clear 
> example of something where a much broader audience could be served in 
> the maps.umn.edu space. Be thankful for redirects, I suppose 
> (umn.edu/maps does something useful).
>
> Not that campusmaps.umn.edu is bad name.
>
> We've been talking a lot about the architecture of the U lately, and I 
> think it would be helpful for us to understand where all the other 
> units and developers/ecomm folks are coming from. Five models come to 
> mind when you drop down a level, under a college or VP or vice 
> chancellor, for instance.
>
>    umn.edu/unit/something
>    umn.edu/something
>    unit.umn.edu/something
>    something.unit.umn.edu
>    something.umn.edu
>
> The something.umn.edu does make sense for functions of units that 
> serve campuswide or systemwide purposes, regardless of where they are 
> in the org chart (i.e. onestop.umn.edu, which serves a huge audience 
> and has a cool name).
>
> What makes sense to everyone? And why? Is the idea of different 
> hostnames for everything driven more by the client or by the developer?
>

-- 
--

Sara Hurley, MFA
612-625-7709

Web Coordinator
http://cpheo.sph.umn.edu
Digital Learning Group (DLG)
School of Public Health
University of Minnesota