...
The short answer is because we must. Just think about our subjects on the old school sites (even where on homesite the content is still mastered on school sites). Our new approach is based around topic pages, not subject pages. Wile most topics consist of subjects from the same school (e.g. the topic Film and theatre contains two subjects, Film and Theatre), others cross schools (e.g. the topic History and classics contains five subjects from two schools), and some even cross faculties (e.g. the topic Environment contains six subjects from two faculties). Add to this the confusion for students deciding on what to study if we "bounced" them between old subject pages and new topic pages depending on what subject they wanted to look at next. As we have already accepted that it makes sense to prune the CSP information off all faculty and school sites, the first "by domain" sweep the next question is . . . .
...
What is the most we could prune off all F&S sites before starting to build the first new faculty site?
Our current approach for Phase 2 is that CSP (and staff profile) content would be addressed "by domain" across all faculties, rather than as we address all the content on a specific faculty site (i.e." by faculty"). By implication, the remaining content on a faculty site would then be considered and either dropped/deleted or rewritten. The big question is whether this "by topic" approach should be utilised further, extending this gradual whittling down/thinning/pruning of the faculty sites prior to the new replacement faculty site being developed?
There are currently three or four areas (in common to all/most faculties, significant volume of content (i.e. number of pages), with clear target areas on Homesite) in contention for also being addressed "by domain" before we start on building the first new faculty site:
- Postgraduate: Programmes (subjects will be done in Phase 2), information, forms, etc on faculty and schools sites, but excluding FGR's faculty site and postgraduatelife be left Research, that will be handled in Phase 3
- Research: Information for, on and about research (including funding, etc) that is currently in faculty and school sites, but excluding the research centres, institutes and chairs, as they will be handled in Phase 4.
- Information to support current students
In documenting the opinions of the various stakeholders:
- The project team members have different views and there is no clear consensus.
- The workload impacts will also be real on the core (unles this is project or shared work?) team (remapping of urls, taking pages down, fixing "issues" that emerge as we tinker with old and existing sites) yet they have had little involvement in this discussion to date. Nathan supports the CSP and staff being done first but is unsure if further "by domain" sweeps is (on balance) beneficial.
- The workload impacts will also be real on staff in the faculties (subject matter experts, review of new content, critique/error spotting, etc), yet they have had little involvement in this discussion to date.
- Impacts of users, while important, might be easily overstated. They are not actively looking on faculty and school sites for postgraduate and research information. It might prove impossible to quantify the impacts on them.
On balance I propose that we approach this in the following, prioritised manner:
- Deal with CSP "by domain"
- Deal with staff profiles "by domain" just as soon as a way forward is arranged with ITS
- Once we have this experience behind us, decide whether to extend the "by domain" approach to postgraduate and research or whether moving to the "by faculty" approach is preferable: That is in common to other faculties and/or has a natural home in the Current Students zone on Homesite, but excluding current student information that is unique to a faculty and/or does not have a natural home in Current Students (until more work here is done, be that I/A or refactoring).
All other content on faculty and school sites will be dealt with on a "by faculty" basis.
How do we decide on where to change from "by domain" to "by faculty"?
The project team members and Nathan are in agreement to attempt and prune off as much as possible from all the existing faculty sites before engaging with building a new site for the first faculty. Some guidelines and limits to this view are:
- Follow "by domain" so long as the domain is common to all/most faculties, contains a significant volume of content, and has a clear target area on Homesite where the current I/A and core team resourcing can "receive" this content. If the answer to most of these is not yes then the content could probably stay on the old site until the "by faculty" approach deals with it.
- Content that could not be moved but ought can be park in a temporary and ring-fenced page/section on the new faculty site until resources or timing is ripe to deal with it properly.
- Stand-alone sites that are specifically mentioned in the high level scope for another stage should remain unchanged until that stage.
- Resist the temptation to perpetuate the life of the old sites by surfacing new content on the old faculty and school sites, even if it seems to meet a short term objective. It will be tempting, but is likely to extend the time span for disabling the old site.
- Content with low usage/unique views could be dealt with by any method, any time. If few people are looking at tit then lets not stew over how and when to handle it. The lower the usage the less we need to weight or consider the impact on users.
- Avoid having more instances of the truth than we currently have. This means we try to turn pages off as there are replacement pages available and live.
What are the implications of following the "by domain" approach further than initially intended?
- More redirecting: area being pruned will require an audit and plan for the links to that area from elsewhere, especially on the old faculty site it is coming form. Sometimes we might be able to enable the new content on Homesite and leave the old working on the old site without any great disadvantage. Making changes on a stable, albeit old site introduces risk. While testing can mitigate this risk, it costs and is unlikely to entirely eliminate it.
- By domain is likely to extend the elapsed time over which we need contact with the web admins in faculty and schools. However, it will be less intense on any one faculty or person, so on balance is probably a better idea. It also gives us more opportunities to win people over and show what the new content looks like in on Homesite before we disable their old faculty site.
- I am unclear if one approach is more efficient (i.e. quicker/cheaper) over all.
- I am unclear if one approach has less workload impact on the core team. Having said this it is clear that doing things well will place high demands on the core team, both the impact on the
- URL's: We would have less flexibility to reuse existing urls for the new topic pages until such time as the old school and faculty sites are disabled, freeing up some more desirable urls (e.g. www.victoria.ac.nz/design
When do we require a decision on the approach?
Although it is comforting to have an approach decided well ahead of time (mainly so we can communicate it to others) we are continually learning how to do WIP better and as such might make a better decision if we left it until later. Maybe the best compromise is to have an agreed approach at any stage, yet be open to refining the approach as we learn more. This means we could agree on an approach now (maybe even the old we are already following) review this as we near the end of CSP.
How do we guide users to new information on old F&S sites?
...
- Do not display new content on the old sites: We want to move users to the new site, not retain them on the old faculty era sites
- Redirect/guide users to the smallest number of points possible on the new site: Lets minimise the granularity of redirects to be as few as possible, both to save work and to guide users down a small number of supported/scaffolded paths.
And some questions:
...
What content could we move as is? Implications of reskinning pages?
We have not seen any content that we would want to move "as is" but accept that we will move "out of scope" content (e.g. short courses) without any changes. So yes, but only due to scope nit because the quality is good enough.
...
Other questions from Chrissi awaiting answers
- What impact will it have on the testing required and how will it influence the remaining test plan
- What impact on delivery/timeframes – can we do this all by the end of 2016? Is there an approach that is quicker? Does that mean we cut corners?
- Content mapping – in addition to the spreadsheet on F&S v2 page > https://victoriauniversity.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=16154703
- Will we still tackle PG sites and any research sites documented for phases 3 & 4 after this or as part of the F&S work?
- Implications of having 2 sites or two lots of content live?
- What content could we move as is? Implications of reskinning pages?
- What are the development views?
- Can we wait until staff profiles and CSP is done?
- Can we do relative sizing yet or is the approach required upfrontfront?