Content Comparison

...

Setting a "distance" filter will reduce the offering, maybe down to (next to) nothing. Is this the message we want to send? Maybe some wider phrase and criteria like "Partially by distance" or "Mixed mode" if at the programme level. Look at how PG programmes use their "delivery method" column and maybe align? For this ask Charlotte.
On writing style: Less exclamation marks, fewer capitals, direct language on action buttons (e.g. Recommend topics), etc
Need to figure out how we deal with the messaging around restricted entry (either to the programme or at 2nd year)
Likes profiling of sample courses. Suggests we do half 1st year, half 2nd, steer away from special topic and courses taught only every second year, should sound interesting and show variety available, etc. Not even implied relationship in reading top down or left to right.
Need to figure out how to display graduate profiles more. External audit pulled VUW up over this.
Note that all majors can also be studied as a minor. Listed minors have different/more specific rules than a general minor.
Must ensure that careers are real and maybe realistic. Universities are known to make up glamorous sounding careers/jobs, even when nothing like that exists. Check/align with CareersNZ
Wants to see all of it (i.e. programmes) to see how it all hangs together.
But more importantly wants to see it up and live ASAP.
Overall, positive and supportinve supportive and will help socialise and "sell" the topic approach around the university.

...

From Theressa (CSP Reference Group)

Page should work well for UG, guiding from wider/higher to narrower/lower level of "subject. Would be interested to see programme page
Wonder if PG share the same information needs. They are not only more knowledgeable, but also have more diverse information needs (lives more complex/multi-faceted).
Moving all the programme rules to the programme page is a good idea. Much improved.
Likes Martin's suggestions on what courses not to profile (see above).
Be careful if you only show the course title, as academic staff have been known to "sex it up" too much, leading to complaints later that the title was misleading.
Thoughts on the support that is available: You need to recognise that you need support, and then know that it is available. Web links may not help with the first. Unsure on proportion of Maori students who utilise the available services
Supports information being suitable for most students doing a standard degree (not conjoint, no outside majors, without complex transfer requirements) being able to work out what to study without speaking to an advisor.

...

Both really liked the behaviour of the 15 high level areas as navigation (expanding and collapsing while staying on the same screen).
Need to explain (to staff if consulting) the reason behind the taxonomy and the limitation of any one taxonomy (as staff will want changes that may not always be better or worse than what is already there)
Ask staff to help with keywords for alternative search terms, both because they know and to provide an outlet rather than changing the taxonomy. Could include related topics
In explanation don't downplay the PG relationship (i.e. how the taxonomy and topic page works for PG), as all schools want more PG students. "Designed/tuned to meet UG needs and also works well for PG"
Explore how the page can recommend elective courses to support the major. (Is this related to a suggested major?)
"What you might study" - People will, disproportionately, enrol in the course shown here. Think through how this can be used as a strength (to boost enrolments where they are needed) and not become a weakness. (Might need a user story on how this could work)
Be careful in the "You might like X on Victoria if you" block that wording does not disadvantage students who are not currently at school.
When presenting course information be careful not to misrepresent information from Course Finder.
What year does this information relate to? Meaning from September onwards most users want to see 2016 information but some still want 2015.

...

Much interest and conversation on how the search for subjects/topics would work. Concerned that as not all users search the same way we might dis-empower many by only one listing/subject.
Keywords: what can be pulled in automatically (or by the project team), so that academic staff only check and augment, not start from scratch.
When is it better to repeat a subject in the taxonomy and when is it better to link to it as related?
Where will we show specialisations? In the case of BCom there seems to be only Info Sys that has them (Information Systems Business Analysis and also Information Technology Solutions). These might be better (visibility, recognition, etc) listed as subjects?
For PG programmes, note that the nest/cluster/build, so fewer options (or at least pages) could be used to present the full range of offerings.
Maybe features/profiles can be used to make cross-topic connections without over-stating them.