Website Modernization Initiative

The organization had a website that had grown without a plan. Pages were added as needed over the years. Content updated inconsistently, navigation organized around internal departments rather than public needs, and no clear ownership of who maintained what.

The result: a site that looked dated and performed worse. Accessibility barriers created both legal exposure and real friction for the public trying to use it. Content that needed to be updated, policies, contact information, program details, sat in a backlog because publishing required technical support the team couldn't access on demand.

The instinct was to redesign. Our recommendation was different: understand what's actually broken before deciding what to build. A redesign that doesn't fix the underlying structure produces a better-looking version of the same problem.

We started with a structured audit. Reviewing the site's information architecture, content structure, accessibility compliance against WCAG 2.1 AA standards, and the publishing workflow behind it.

The audit surfaced three core problems:

Navigation organized for the organization, not the public. The structure reflected how the agency was internally organized. Not how a resident or constituent would look for information. People couldn't find what they needed even when it was there.

Undefined content ownership. No one was formally accountable for accuracy or updates by page or section. Updates moved through informal channels and often stalled.

Publishing bottlenecked by technical access. Content owners didn't have the access or tools to publish independently. Routine updates required either IT involvement or workarounds. Which is why the backlog existed.

The roadmap addressed these in sequence: information architecture first, content structure second, CMS rebuild third. The rebuild was designed to support the new structure. Not define it.

Execution ran in four phases: foundation (audit and architecture), structure (content reorganization and hierarchy), experience (redesign and accessibility improvements), and operations (CMS configuration, governance documentation, and team training).

Key decisions made during execution:

Navigation was rebuilt around how the public uses the site. We reviewed existing analytics and identified the top tasks residents came to the site to complete. Navigation was restructured around those tasks. Not around the org chart.

Accessibility improvements were prioritized by traffic volume. Rather than fixing everything at once, we sequenced fixes starting with the highest-traffic pages. Color contrast, missing alt text, keyboard navigation, and heading hierarchy were addressed across the pages that mattered most.

Content governance was built into the engagement, not added at handoff. We documented ownership by section and created a publishing process that gave content owners direct access. No IT involvement required for routine updates.

The CMS was configured to reinforce the new structure. Structured content fields made it difficult to publish outside the established format, reducing the formatting inconsistency that had accumulated over years without enforcement.

A backlog of content updates that had been stuck for weeks was cleared. And the new publishing system prevented it from rebuilding. Content owners could update pages directly without waiting for technical support.

Accessibility barriers across high-traffic public-facing pages were resolved, addressing both WCAG 2.1 AA compliance gaps and the legal exposure that came with them.

Navigation was restructured around public needs. Independently tested with users unfamiliar with the organization before launch.

Content governance documentation was in place from day one post-launch: defined ownership by section, a clear publishing process, and training the team could reference without us.

The site launched on schedule, with a post-launch optimization plan already documented and assigned.

The most important decision in this engagement was to audit before redesigning. The organization came in wanting a new look. What they needed first was a clear picture of why the site wasn't working. And that picture changed what we built.

The governance work mattered as much as the design work. A new site without ownership and process documentation reverts to its previous state within a year. Building the operational layer, who maintains what, how updates move through approval, what the process looks like when something breaks, is what made this engagement produce lasting results, not just a one-time improvement.