As we now have a set of wire frames and access to interact with them I am sure that we all have feedback. This raises the need of somewhere to capture them so that the decisions on which feedback to act on is not reliant on any one person speaking with Jo, but can be socialised (otr or at leasat least made transparent). The following links should help provide context and background:
- Wire frames in Hotgloo
- Topic Programme page content documents
- Content strategy
- Topic page examples
- Subject groupings, relationships and mapping to programmes
- User stories
Summary of feedback for team discussion
...
- 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. Action: will mark at UG and explain on programme page
- Pre-degree: We have four such programmes. Do we have a tag for these? Might require some creative mapping from subjects. Action: Will tag as Pre-degree.
- Anne Nelson (Unlicensed) to draft tool tip text for Pre-degree
- 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? Action: For exceptions only, list applicable subjects in grey text under degree name
- Degree or programme: We need to decide on language. Action: With Anne Nelson (Unlicensed) and Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed)
- 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.
- Is this where we would suggest elective courses that "support" a major? Sounds more like a programme feature or that of a planning tool.
- Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) to write user story
- Content at mega-area level: Seems like we have settled on an image and a short description. Is this all? Action: Have intros for all components and will use whatever ones we need. User feedback may refine what is displayed.
- User testing plan: We need one.
- Joe Lobotka (Unlicensed) to lead. Paul to support
- Support images and video: With headings and text if required. Action: Will wait and see what we need.
- 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? Action: Have already refined number down. Wait and see user testing.
- 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? Need to be careful about what result set we use, the depth we search, the display of the results, and keeping the user in the same page/section.
- Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) to write user story
- Keywords and search: The above point leads nicely in to a concern about how we handle people looking for something that is taught at Victoria but not mentioned in our taxonomy? This is partly search, partly keywords or metadata. Related to/tied up with item directly above
- 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?
- Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) to discuss further with Charles. 15/9: Charles has agreed that VI will have exactly the same taxonomy and topic pages as Future Students. Internationalisation of pages and content will be on the degree/programme level only.
- PG programme options: Do we list or have one link to a way finder page?
- Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) to write user story
- 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). Action: Remove from topic page. Build in to COO and programme pages.
- International filter: Is this a good idea? How would it work? Action: No. Remove.
- "like X if you liked/studied Y at school": Might unnecessarily exclude many future students who are not (or were not recently) in school. Action: With Anne Nelson (Unlicensed)
- 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?. Action: Can and will treat as subject if required.
- Subject links on taxonomy page: Will this too strongly encourage people to jump straight to the subject, thereby missing our marketing content and any related topics?
- Joe Lobotka (Unlicensed) to revisit page and may simplify/shorten.
- Victoria's strengths in the discipline: We may not yet be meeting this aim. Thoughts on how to improve? Action: Wait and see content writing and user testing
...
— TO BE COMPLETED LATER —
Individual's feedback (direct or via meetings)
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.
...
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Electronics and mechatronics topic has 2 subjects: 1 is studied in a Bsc and 1 is studied in a BE and a BE(Hons)
- 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)
- Policy topic has 2 subjects: 1 is studied in a BA (minor only) and 1 is studied in a BCom and a BA
- 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
- 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
- Development studies topic has 1 subject studied in a BA and a BSc (while also being a minor in a BSc)
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Navigation might yet be confusing (as per 'Tash's comments in the demo/review) but I guess user feedback will show us.
- 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.
- 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.
From Anne
It's looking really good - nice work Joe 
Testing
Will we test it with school students?
Mega level
Do we need text here? (The testing might clarify that.)
Content
I need to clean up some of the new text before it goes in front of the Reference Group and Faculty Managers. (Even tho it's only placeholder text, they will read it...) Can we catch up on Monday to do that? Or I could send something through, if you like.
Using logos - where relevant to the text, is a nice touch. However, we'd need to get permission to use.
Terminology - we introduce terms like courses, PG, UG and minor without explaining them - need to address that.
About
...
- :
...
...
Subjects
- I don't think courses should be here - they are heavily featured in the programme page, and the content strategy doesn't mention having courses here. Happy to hear what others think, of course... If we did keep courses, we'd need to explain that they are papers via the ? icon (as it's terminology) - this icon is currently used for something else...
- 'Your Architecture' - as mentioned above, need to review this new text before the Reference Group meeting on Wed.
- Landscape Architecture - professional recognition block. I need to talk to Sam Motion (Unlicensed) about this - we currently have it on Careers, the programme page and perhaps here too.
- Content block at bottom - as per comment above.
Careers
- Looking good. (Have some content questions but will run thru them with Sam.)
- Content block at bottom - as per above.
People & stories
- Video example - if it's a story, let's give it a heading and one sentence intro (so they know what it is and whether to view it).
- Content block at bottom - as per above.
...
From Anne
...
...
Is it useful to have this in one place? If so, please add...
...
From Charles (CSP Reference Group)
Note: Many of the comments Charles made refer more to PG, as most international students study at higher levels.
- Likes the marketing focus of topic pages (maybe because this is what he does for a job). Asked who will maintain it, as (in his experience) distributing this does not work so well.
- Believe that VI should come over wholly to the topic-subject approach. Still a few edge cases to work through but wants to align unless badly detrimental. This brings efficiency and "same message" advantage.
- He will provide Anne and Sam with their style needs (probably just good writing anyway).
- VI might need to make more selective use of the programme pages, given that not all programmes are suitable for their audience. Alternatively, maybe a general (or specific) disclaimer on the "international version" of the programme page would suffice.
- Very keen on an easy way for VI students to distinguish between the different PG programme offerings. He wants a brief textual statement (as in the 160 character Squiz metadata description), whereas I want that plus some icons/summary facts (e.g. number of bedrooms and bathrooms in a house real estate listing)
- Likes rich media, but wants quality over quantity
- Supports having PG programmes linked from here. Although not all PG students would use or need a topic page we do not really know how many would use it. Might be more likely for international students, as changing education system/language/culture introduces a caution that you know what is what.
- Comfortable with PG only subjects for the same reason as shown above, and because it shows the breadth of our offering.
- Overall, very supportive of the approach and will work with us (not only to make it better but) to get VI on board and working with it
...
From Martin (CSP Reference Group)
...
)
...
...
From Theresa (CSP Reference Group)
...
)
...
...
From Kristina (CSP Reference Group) and Melissa
...
...
From Adrienne (CSP Reference Group) and John Randal
...