# User Experience, Functionality and Aesthetics Evaluation in an Academic Multi-Site Web Ecosystem
## 5 Results
### Qualitative Analysis
#### 5.2.7 Do You Take Advantage of the Content Management Platform's Collaborative Management Features?  
The consensus among the participants was that the platform's collaborative management features are extremely efficient, organized, and very well structured. They all agreed that the alternative of having to contact each individual manager through various means in order to request the posting of a news item or an event is far from optimal. P7 argued that this collaborative system is innovative and unique among academic institutions and that it is very important for different departments within the same institution to be able to efficiently exchange information. P9 added that the overall process of making sharing requests is very efficient and time-saving for all parties involved and that the feeling of improved productivity makes the editors more keen to spend time generating content. P5 highlighted the ability to add comments when rejecting a request, thus providing the other party with feedback in order to efficiently filter their future requests. They also noted that the whole system is very democratic and emphasizes both the autonomy of each department and collectiveness.  
2.8 What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Ecosystem and Which Needs Are Addressed by Its Use?  
All the participants agreed that the primary strength of the ecosystem is the uniformity between the websites providing the visitor with the sense that they are all part of the same family. This uniformity, combined with the simplicity in both aesthetics and functionality, makes for a very pleasing visitor UX. P3 specifically referred to the fact that a visitor will never land on a non-functional webpage, even when content is missing, and will always be given the ability to continue their browsing. In terms of weaknesses, the main complaint was centered around the fact that the content manager is not able to manipulate some of the website elements that are either fixed or inaccessible and thus will often need to work in collaboration with the development team. In contrast to that, P1 pointed out that the management system should be allowed to restrict the capabilities of the manager in order to sustain a balance between more and less advanced users on the basis of what absolutely needs to be editable by content editors and what may just over-complicate the content management experience.  
2.9 Which Needs Are Not Addressed by the System and What Additions or Changes Would You Suggest in Terms of Functionality and Presentation?  
The participants' comments regarding needs that were not addressed by the system or additions to it were mostly related to content manipulation features and ideas about new technologies that could help improve the platform. A lot of the requests of the content managers had to do with limitations of their level of access. Additionally, some experts mentioned feeling constrained in various aspects and made requests that would allow them more agency. P6 proposed the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) features, for example, for translation purposes or for reviewing the content before posting, or even the use of generative artificial intelligence in order to introduce additional text to a post. Moreover, P6 also made suggestions for improved content dissemination through extra social media sharing features as well as integrated newsletter functionality.