Welcome to your tools, and resources for Web 3.0, Web Standardization.
To see tickets that have been submitted and status updates go to the 3.0 FAQ page
To submit or report a question, or if you need help please submit to the HELPDESK (updated)
 

Submitting a ticket Rules of Engagement:

• Ticket it MUST include the URL to the page you are requesting edits for
• Include any supporting screen shots to make it clear the area you are seeking assistance for
• Please properly identify the impact level (see below for Tier break out)
• Do NOT submit a multi page word doc
• One topic per ticket

Tier 1 - Broken / high impact / operational in nature / emergency
Tier 2 - Content edits to standard enterprise copy 
Tier 3 - It would be nice to have / no immediate impact / enhancements

• Training and Resources
• 3.0 FAQ

The Why and How of 3.0

We want to provide clear and shared understanding on where we are with ESMC 3.0, why the site experience looks/behaves the way it does right now, and how we will manage fixes and requests through migration completion NLT 5 Jun.

1) How we got here / why ESMC 3.0 is standardized:

• Enterprise consistency: ESMC 3.0 is designed to provide a consistent, recognizable Army Family and MWR web experience across garrisons (navigation, layouts, core program pages, required elements).
• Speed and scale: Standardized components allow us to migrate the entire enterprise on schedule, apply fixes once (instead of page-by-page), and reduce long-term sustainment burden on garrisons.
• Compliance and quality: The enterprise framework supports accessibility, branding continuity, and technical consistency across the network, while we continue to expand options for local content.
• Purpose-built experience (reduce “information bloat”): Years of unchecked content created duplicative/aged pages and “brochure sprawl.” ESMC is designed to be a functional tool that drives patrons to clear actions (call, book, register, visit, learn eligibility), not an exhaustive repository of everything a garrison has ever offered.

2) Common friction points we’re seeing (and the enterprise approach)

• Enterprise vs. local content visibility
• Enterprise program structures/pages are shared by design to build awareness and support consistent navigation across the Army.
• To reduce confusion, we are using “not all programs available at all locations” disclaimers and encouraging garrisons to use local imagery/content blocks to clearly represent what’s offered onsite.
• Branding & program titles (joint bases / local terminology)
• Enterprise program titles are standardized and will not be altered for individual garrisons/bases.
• Local branding can be reflected through approved local content areas (imagery, intro copy blocks, callouts, local contacts/hours, and location-specific CTAs) without changing the enterprise title taxonomy.
• Language & copy standards (change requests on phrasing)
• Enterprise copy is professionally vetted (copywriters, program managers, and SEO) to support clarity, consistency, search performance, and patron comprehension.
• As a result, enterprise copy is not customizable per site except for clearly defined local fields/blocks (e.g., local hours, contacts, pricing where applicable, local eligibility nuances when approved).
• Standardization & content control (“why can’t we just do it our way?”)
• Standardization is what enables enterprise-wide fixes, reduces sustainment burden, and protects accessibility/quality.
• Prior attempts to offer highly flexible layout tools (e.g., 2020) saw low adoption and drove inconsistency—this structured model is the lessons-learned approach.
• Small garrison strategy (minimal programming / avoiding “empty” pages)
• We will provide guidance for locations with minimal programming (e.g., Natick, Blue Grass) to keep pages relevant without implying services that aren’t offered locally.
• Near-term approach is to emphasize what *is* available locally (hours, contact, facility info, announcements), what is available nearby/regionally, and what can be used remotely (e.g., select services like ITR where applicable).

3) Why some content may not match every garrison’s offerings (right now)

• Enterprise program pages are shared by design: Some program listings and descriptive content are standardized across the enterprise to support a consistent user experience and improve maintainability.
• Local variation is real: Offerings differ by garrison; where content could be misinterpreted as a guarantee of local availability, we are adding clarity (e.g., “not all programs available at all locations”) and refining the model as we complete migration.
• Customization is being expanded in phases: HQ Marketing and PortlandLabs are continuing to push remaining units and training that increase the ability to highlight garrison-specific imagery, messaging, and details—without breaking the enterprise framework.

4) HQ Marketing + PortlandLabs focus now through NLT 5 Jun

• Complete migration on schedule: Prioritize work that keeps the enterprise on track to complete ESMC 3.0 migration NLT 5 Jun.
• Deliver remaining units/blocks and training: Continue rolling out the remaining components that enable stronger garrison-level storytelling and clarity within the standardized experience.
• Stabilize and refine: Address defects and systemic issues that affect multiple garrisons and implement high-impact fixes that reduce customer confusion—especially credibility-impacting items.

5) How to submit issues, best practices, and special requests (and what will happen to them)

• Please submit items toHQ Marketing via a Helpdesk ticket. Include the URL, screenshots (if applicable), the desired outcome, and whether it is mission/credibility impacting.
• We will triage each ticket into one of the following:
• Immediate fix / response: We can correct it quickly (e.g., broken elements, obvious errors, systemic issues, high-impact confusion).
• Document for follow-up post-migration: Valid request but executing now would create schedule risk; we will track and re-address once ESMC 3.0 migration is complete.
• ESMC 4.0 enhancement candidate: Good idea that requires design/engineering work beyond migration scope; we will capture it for later consideration and prioritization.
• What we need from garrisons
• Keep the tickets coming—through the Helpdesk so we can track, prioritize, and resolve consistently.
• Flag credibility-impacting issues (content that could reasonably mislead a patron into expecting a service that is not offered locally) so we can address clarity quickly.
• Share best practices you discover during content review—those help everyone.

Thank you for your partnership and patience as we standardize and complete the enterprise migration. We will continue to communicate updates as remaining units and training are released and as we move toward the 5 Jun completion target.

What's next? 

18 Feb -Pilot Unit A Launch

12 March  EPW Unit A Launch

22 March – Training sessions for Unit B programs