Supporting a Large Federal Web Ecosystem

Challenge

The U.S. Forest Service Region 3 web environment included a large mix of public-facing websites and internal platforms serving different audiences, programs, offices, and operational needs.

The work extended across more than 17 public websites and 30+ internal platforms.

That scale created an ongoing operational challenge: content had to remain accurate, accessible, usable, and publishable across multiple systems while supporting routine communications, program information, internal operations, modernization efforts, and time-sensitive updates.

The environment also required coordination across people with different roles and levels of web expertise.

Program staff and subject-matter experts often understood the content best, while web teams were responsible for publishing standards, accessibility, structure, usability, and platform requirements.

The challenge was therefore broader than maintaining individual pages. It required keeping a complex digital ecosystem functioning consistently.

My role

I worked as part of the Region 3 Office of Communications web team, supporting day-to-day web operations across public and internal platforms.

My responsibilities included:

• Publishing and updating web content
• Supporting more than 17 public websites
• Supporting more than 30 internal platforms
• Applying Section 508 and WCAG accessibility requirements
• Reviewing content quality and structure
• Supporting content governance and cleanup
• Assisting with USWDS and Drupal modernization work
• Supporting emergency and time-sensitive communications
• Coordinating with program staff, communications teams, and other stakeholders
• Helping maintain consistency across a distributed web environment

The role required both technical web knowledge and editorial judgment.

A request could involve a simple content update, an accessibility problem, a publishing issue, a migration question, a governance decision, or an urgent communication need.

Process

1. Receive and evaluate requests

   Web work often began with a request from a program office, communications staff member, subject-matter expert, or another internal stakeholder.

   Before publishing, I needed to understand what the requester was trying to accomplish and whether the requested change was appropriate for the platform.

   • Who was the intended audience?
   • Was the information current?
   • Did it already exist elsewhere?
   • Was the requested location the correct place for it?
   • Did the content meet accessibility requirements?
   • Was the language understandable to the intended user?
   • Was the information appropriate for a public website or an internal platform?

   This evaluation helped prevent the web environment from becoming a collection of isolated requests with no broader structure.

2. Prepare and structure content

   Content often required preparation before it could be published effectively.

   • Organizing information into a logical structure
   • Improving headings and page hierarchy
   • Revising link text
   • Reviewing images and alternative text
   • Improving readability and plain language
   • Removing unnecessary formatting
   • Checking whether attached documents were appropriate for publication
   • Identifying duplicate or outdated information

   The objective was not simply to reproduce submitted material online. It was to make the information work in a web environment.

3. Publish and perform quality assurance

   After content was prepared, it was published through the appropriate content management system or internal platform.

   Quality assurance included checking the completed page or update in context rather than assuming the publishing interface accurately represented the final user experience.

   • Heading structure
   • Links
   • Navigation
   • Layout
   • Images
   • Alternative text
   • Formatting
   • Responsive behavior
   • Accessibility concerns
   • Content accuracy
   • Consistency with surrounding pages

   This final review was especially important in a multi-site environment because small inconsistencies can accumulate quickly across dozens of platforms.

4. Coordinate with stakeholders

   Web operations depended heavily on communication.

   Program staff knew their subject matter, while the web team brought expertise in digital publishing, usability, accessibility, governance, and platform requirements.

   I regularly had to translate between those perspectives.

   That sometimes meant explaining why a requested approach should be changed, why a document needed additional work, why content belonged somewhere else, or why an existing page should be updated instead of creating another one.

   The goal was to help stakeholders meet their communication needs without sacrificing the quality or maintainability of the web environment.

5. Support governance and lifecycle decisions

   Web operations also included deciding what should no longer remain online.

   As part of broader governance work, I helped support the review and retirement of outdated digital assets.

   This connected everyday publishing decisions to a larger content lifecycle:

   Create → Review → Publish → Maintain → Update → Retire

   Treating retirement as a normal part of web operations helped reduce content sprawl and improve long-term maintainability.

6. Support modernization

   The web environment was also undergoing modernization work involving Drupal and the U.S. Web Design System.

   That required adapting content and publishing practices to newer structures and standards while continuing to support active websites.

   Migration and modernization work reinforced the importance of good content governance. Moving outdated, duplicate, or poorly structured content into a newer platform does not solve the underlying problem.

   Content needed to be evaluated as part of the modernization process rather than moved automatically.

7. Support urgent communications

   Not all web work followed a routine schedule.

   Federal web operations also involved time-sensitive communications in which information needed to be published quickly and accurately.

   In those situations, speed mattered, but so did clarity, accessibility, and reliability.

   The work required balancing urgency with the responsibility to ensure that information was understandable and usable once it reached the public.

Accessibility considerations

Accessibility was part of routine web operations rather than a separate project.

Each publishing decision could affect people using assistive technology, keyboard navigation, magnification, mobile devices, or other adaptive approaches.

• Using logical heading structures
• Reviewing link purpose and avoiding ambiguous link text
• Providing meaningful alternative text for images
• Checking color and presentation choices
• Avoiding unnecessary formatting that interfered with reading order
• Reviewing documents and downloadable content
• Supporting keyboard and screen-reader usability
• Considering responsive reflow and magnification
• Applying Section 508 and WCAG requirements during publishing
• Encouraging accessible practices among content contributors

Accessibility was also closely connected to usability.

A page could technically meet individual requirements and still be difficult to understand or navigate. For that reason, I treated accessibility, content structure, plain language, and usability as related parts of the same publishing process.

Outcome

The work helped support the ongoing operation of a large federal digital environment spanning more than 17 public websites and 30+ internal platforms .

The value of the work was not one isolated launch or redesign. It was the consistent operation and maintenance of a complex web ecosystem over time.

The work contributed to:

• More consistent publishing practices
• Better integration of accessibility into routine web operations
• Improved content quality and structure
• Reduced duplication and outdated content
• Stronger content governance
• Better migration and modernization readiness
• More reliable support for program offices and communications staff
• Continued availability of public and internal information across multiple platforms
• Support for urgent and time-sensitive communications

The project demonstrates the operational side of digital work that is often invisible when a website is functioning well.

Reliable web operations require ongoing review, coordination, accessibility work, governance, quality assurance, and judgment long after a website has been launched.

Related links

• U.S. Web Design System
• Digital.gov
• Section508.gov
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
• Content Governance case study