Content Comparison

...

• Wire frames in Hotgloo
• Topic page content strategy
• Topic page examples
• Subject groupings, relationships and mapping to programmes

Summary of feedback for team discussion

1. Minors: I suggest we do not refer to them at all on the topic pages, rather use the tag "UG" and explain more fully on the degree page. If we leave it in then use tool tip to explain.
2. Pre-degree: We have four such programmes. Do we have a tag for these? Might require some creative mapping from subjects.
3. Topics available in two UG degrees: Need careful though on how to present without confusing (especially when not all subjects are available in both), as well as assisting the user know which one is the "best fit" for me. Or is this "best fit" a programme page function? Or the "compare programmes" wish list item?
4. Sample courses: Consultation supported this idea. Anne has a different view but is open to discus and if it proceeds has a good suggestion re the tool tip. This difers from Anne's view, but even if we proceed. See Anne's comments about tool tip.  Requires a user story to define the rules and behaviours.
   
   1. Is this where we would suggest elective courses that "support" a major? Sounds more like a programme feature or that of a planning tool.
5. Content at mega-area level: Seems like we have settled on an image and a short description. Is this all?
6. User testing plan: We need one
7. Support images and video: With headings and text if required.
8. Contact block: Needs some discussion as to how many and what links are included. Should align with content strategy, as in what do we want people to do on this page. Will same ones work for VI? PG?
9. Topic filter: A good idea but the presentation of the results needs work. Need to show user the "deeper" result than mega-area and even than topic. Needs to work in with search strategy and other applications. Is a specific instance of the "contextual search" mentioned in WIP-247. I think I should write up another user story for discussion at (dev team) story time.?
10. VI: Not all degrees are suitable to promote internationally. Do we vary the mapping (based on master data) or use disclaimers on the degree page?
11. PG programme options: Do we list or have one link to a way finder page?
12. Distance filter: At the wrong level (as it is probably a programme attribute) and even there problematic (in that very few programmes can be studied fully by distance).
13. "..like X if you liked Y at school": Might unnecessarily exclude many future students who are not (or were not recently) in school.
14. Specialisations: Academic staff will desire (and might require) that we list specialisations as subjects on the topic page. They can have more meaning/appeal to students than the major on its own. How would this work?

I suggest that each person (who want to give feedback) adds their own (named) section, with their comments listed. This way we can read each others views and be informed for a discussion.

From Paul

1. Wonder Wonderful work, much improved on the first version, loved playing around (once I understood what were tool bugs and what was navigation cf functional cf informational)
2. Minors: I think we have to deal with these better, especially where they are a "listed minor" (i.e. in the Calendar). In these cases there is a programme/degree we can link to, while (somewhere) explaining that you can not do a degree with only a minor.
   1. Could we leave the "minor only" until they get to the UG programme page? Would be one less term to explain, as it ought not be necessary to show on the topic page.
3. Pre-degree: As per the specific example in item 3 on the wish list, we not only need to redo these programme pages but also handle the subjects appropriately.
4. Topics with two UG degrees: 10 topics (out of 50) have this pattern, with 9 of these where not all subjects on those topic pages map to each of the two degrees. The current interface is confusing for these situations so we need a better way to handle this. The 10 topics are:
   1. Economics topic has 3 subjects: 1 is PG only, 1 is studied in a BCom (minor only) and 1 is studied in a BCom and a BA 
   2. Finance topic has 3 subjects: 1 is PG only, 1 is studied in a BCom and 1 is studied in a BCom and a BSc
   3. Education topic has 3 subjects: 1 is PG only, 1 is studied in a BA and 1 is studied in a BTeach and a BA 
   4. Electronics and mechatronics topic has 2 subjects: 1 is studied in a Bsc and 1 is studied in a BE and a BE(Hons)
   5. Software and computer science topic has 2 subjects: 1 is studied in a Bsc and 1 is studied in a BE and a BE(Hons)
   6. Policy topic has 2 subjects: 1 is studied in a BA (minor only) and 1 is studied in a BCom and a BA 
   7. Maths and statistics topic has 4 subjects: 1 is PG only, 1 is studied in a BSc, 1 is studied in a BSc and a BA, and 1 is studied in a BSc and a BCom
   8. Psychology topic has 5 subjects: 3 are PG only, 1 is studied in a BA and 1 is studied in a BSc and a BA 
   9. Development studies topic has 1 subject studied in a BA and a BSc (while also being a minor in a BSc) 
   10. Geography topic has 4 subjects: 2 are PG only, 1 is studied in a BSc and 1 is studied in a BSc and a BA 
5. Following point 4, I am concerned how, on a self-service model, we will guide people to select between two different programmes when their subject offers this choice. I think we need a "goodness of fit" on the programme page.
6. Liked the way you have profiled a selection of courses, as students I interviewed wanted to know what they will be studying (specifically, even while shopping around). Without overloading them with course information this gives an insight/taster. Nice balance. But do not show as many, as it is overload until they get to the programme.
7. Professional membership/recognition: I believe this may need to be quite early on, even if only to generate buy-in from the faculties who work so hard to obtain and maintain it.
8. Navigation might yet be confusing (as per 'Tash's comments in the demo/review) but I guess user feedback will show us.
9. I think we might have too much content/too many bits or all the "show more" bits makes the page seem too broken up. Also, I feel that seeing bits of content on the "about page" that are then listed in full under the respective tab (e.g. stories) seems repetitive or messy.
10. I think we should discuss the pros and cons for content at the mega level. I have made provision for it in the url work, but it should be need that guides us.

...