Page Comparison

Agreement on whether HELT should be included in the subject taxonomy.

Needed to finalise the education grouping, and to plan engagement with CAD. Also see What do we do with HELT?

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to speak to Nigel about HELT decision by 26 Aug 2015 

Medium

Closed

Who will own the content for the topic pages?

Recommended to be Marketing.

•  Nigel Riley to confirm that marketing will own the content for Topics 27 Aug 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to work with Nigel on comms around topic page ownership 04 Sep 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to meet with Tash Davey (Unlicensed) to discuss content support/change implications 28 Sep 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to feedback impact on topic ownership to Nigel 14 Oct 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to discuss with Nathan Irwin in relation to design for programme pages 23 Oct 2015 

Already agreed with Nigel in discussion, to be noted on the decision log and discussed with WIPII team for official.

Nigel confirms Topic ownership in Marketing. Consideration around approach for writing, updating and signing off content needed.

Will the academic terms be challenged as part of the WIPII project?

Includes programme/degree/qualification; course/paper; and topic/subject/specialisation.

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to follow up with Nigel on who are the key owners for each of the academic terms and agree next steps26 Aug 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to raise academic terms at September PMO meeting24 Sep 2015 
•  WIP team to use current approved academic terms in all documentation and wireframes until approved otherwise28 Aug 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to raise academic terms at web team story time as there is still no clear view on this for Madeleine to raise with Alison Kirkman07 Oct 2015 

Discussed with Nigel and agreed needs to go to PMO for review.

08.10.15 - Raised with Madeleine at PMO. Pushed back to team story time and a suggestion was put to Madeleine to review by Alison Kirkman on 07.10.15.

1.    Degree – when referring to an undergraduate degree (doesn’t appear to be a calendar definition)

2.    Programme – for a postgraduate degree (Masters) or other qualification (Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma, Postgraduate Diploma).  Calendar definition: A coherent set of related courses that may form a qualification, a set of qualifications or a major or specialisation. 

3.    Course – Calendar definition: an individual unit of study towards a qualification, identified by a course code and title and carrying a specified points value 

Awaiting feedback.

How will the web publishing model be agreed and communicated?

Proposal for F&S approach agreed first?

What is the consultation/sign off process?

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to discuss web publishing model with Nigel Riley
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to share Sam's document on current and future state 18 Sep 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) review and draft consultation for F&S proposal 16 Oct 2015 

Discussed with Nigel 28th August.

We need to understand the programme information needs of PG students reasonably soon. Ideally, we would interview PG students about all WIP-related needs, but this takes time and might not be a priority at this stage. An alternative is that we use what we already know and can learn from contacts (Charlotte, Charles, PG students association, etc) for now and get these written up. If, at a later date after we have interviewed we discover additional needs we modify then.

Personally, I would cut the corner now. My estimates will be based on this but can be increased if need be.

Chrissi Dean what do you think?

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to confirm whether to gather internal requirements for PG in interim.

Confirmed to start with internal and review at later date whether to speak to PG students.

Also documented in JIRA ticket >

Should the topic and associated programme pages be providing future students enough information to enrol or to direct them to further support via advisers?

This will impact the level of information that is provided in the content - more detail required to get to enrol level.

Is there a university view around this?

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to discuss with Nigel Riley whether topic and programme page level is sufficient and whether there is a university view around the user of student advisers 28 Aug 2015 
•  Nigel Riley to set up a meeting with, Cath Powley, and Paul on the path from topics, programmes to enrolment 02 Sep 2015 

Aim to pick up with Nigel in 1-1 this Friday as will impact the strategy and content plan now.

28.08.15 - Nigel will pick with with Cathy (see action). For now the WIP team to assume path is to student advisers and not to add extra depth to the content.

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to discuss topics list location on web channel with Nathan 02 Sep 2015 

Emailed Nathan and David 28.08.

Now forwarded onto Tash Davey (Unlicensed) for comment 28.08

Decision: Will replace subjects page on future students > http://www.victoria.ac.nz/study/programmes-courses/subjects

URL structure for WIPII needs to be agreed.

The main area of risk is in following the first (see below) guideline.

• Always write for humans first.
  • And by extension allocate the best/ shorter urls to benefit the most customers. This would mean promoting topic pages ahead of faculties and schools (e.g. www.victoria.ac.nz/law to take you to the topic page not to the faculty.

Quite a number of our best short urls go to the organisational unit, not to our service offering. I (and I believe the whole team agree) propose we reverse this and map these as they become free (when we disestablish existing school/faculty sites, if not before) to the new topic pages.

This would be in keeping with the content strategies for topic pages and faculty/school sites. We will need you to help sell this message up and out wards.

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to get an update from Paul on where the url structure for WIP is up to. 31 Aug 2015 

11 Sep 2015 

(sprint 19)

draft urls for all topics and subjects are included in master taxonomy spreadsheet, maintained for all name and organisation changes. Reviewed by the core team it is only the suffix that needs deciding (i.e. if /study/ is owned by Squiz pages and WIP builds topics and subject elsewhere we have to use something different) and can be decided when required. Ideas would be /areas-of-study/ or /study-areas/ or the like. Nathan Irwin or Andrew Bredenkamp or Joe Lobotka (Unlicensed) what do you think?

•   Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to follow up with Nigel Riley what needs to be delivered in 2015 for topics and programmes
•  Nigel to raise releases for topics and programmes with Madeleine 02 Oct 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to break down priorities for the programme page development following discussions with Paul and Joe16 Oct 2015 
  

Release 1 (and potentially 2) has been discussed for the taxonomy and the search functionality. Further discussion around agreeing an approach for releasing topics and their associated programme pages to be agreed.

Feedback needed on expectations for releases in 2015.

Discussion also required around how to breakdown the programme page for releases, subject to design developments. What is the MVP. Priorities required as with the topics area (see item 12 on Topics and programmes delivery).

Should there be a disclaimer on each topic and/or programme page?

• Helps manage risk if someone feels disadvantaged because they acted on information that was incomplete (or inaccurate - or out of date).
• The site has a very relevant disclaimer under Site info in the footer. If we feel that's adequate, let's consider whether it's visible enough (ie, not buried - should it be listed separately in the footer?)
• It's also an option to disclaim by item - eg, The three-year BAS costs about $15,000 per year* (* This is an estimate only: contact us if you want to know exact costs.)

Content examples:

Topic page - A qualification from Victoria in Economics or Finance will open doors to jobs that are interesting and important – both in New Zealand and overseas. (What if they can't get a fabulous job - or any job?)

Programme page - There are no restrictions on entry into year 1. However, entry into year 2 is based on your academic performance in the first year. You’ll need to work hard and get good marks. (Actually, in year 2 some students can't get into their preferred specialisation, and are offered a different one. We could just say that here, but it isn't mentioned in our general pubs - and is a negative.)

•  Nigel Riley what do you think? Let's discuss at team meeting.
  
  
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to discuss with Nathan Irwin whether we could make the site disclaimer more prominent when we release topic pages. 02 Oct 2015 

Should pre-degree programmes be in scope as part of CSP/WIPII?

Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) raised that there are 4 pre-degree programmes which currently sit on schools sites that are not currently officially in scope. If they were left out of scope they would have to remain on the school sites, which we have not planned for.

The structure of these pre-degrees currently appear to fit within the UG degree content plan (needs to be confirmed).

How these will fit into the current taxonomy will need to be assessed (first two should fir into a mapping, and possibly the third).

1. Diploma in Māoritanga / Tohu Māoritanga (DipMāori / Tahu Māori) on Te Kawa a Māui - The School of Māori Studies
2. Certificate in Deaf Studies (Teaching NZSL) (CertDeafStud (Teaching NZSL) on the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
3. Certificate in Management Studies on the School of Management
4. English Proficiency Programme (EPP) on the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies

•  Anne Nelson (Unlicensed) to confirm that pre-degrees pages cause no problem/fit into the content strategy/plan for UG degrees 11 Sep 2015 
•  Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) to consider mappings - noted lower priority to the UG and PG mappings 24 Sep 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to raise at team meeting how we manage English proficiency programme 24 Sep 2015 

09.09.15 - Paul raised with Chrissi. Makes sense to include them, but lets just check that it fits with the content plan and isnt going to cause us pain in the taxonomy. See actions.

Anne provided feedback as follows 14.09.15:

Based solely on the content strategy and the agreed ‘Tabs’ for: About, Degree requirements, Entry requirements, Apply/enrol:

• Dip in Maoritanga – Will be OK. Some content will move to the Topic page (eg, Careers, student profiles – if that content is current)
• Cert in Deaf Studies – It’s a bit too brief, but will fit in the template. We could interview them and get a little more content.
• Cert in Management Studies – It will fit in the template.
• English Proficiency Programme – this one isn’t a good fit – there’s a lot of useful content, but it doesn’t follow the structure we’ve developed for UG degrees. It looks very out of date – if we work with them on a rewrite, we may be able to ease it into our format. However, if not, then a pragmatic approach would be to change the wording on one or two of the tabs (rather than make the content fit the design). It would be useful to confirm with Joe that the tab labels could be edited for unusual quals.

In summary – might be worth confirming with Joe that:

• Functional areas to do with courses, rules etc for UGs can be hidden if necessary (he might just make a different template, based on the current, with content-only fields).
• Tab labels can be changed on rare occasions where necessary.

Joe feedback 15.09.15:

Even though there will be a lot of flexibility on Programme pages (to accommodate differences between UG and PG programmes), I don't think it's (generally) a good move to bend templates around content that is out of date. Development overhead will be insignificant as we should be able to hide functional areas and change subpage labels in Squiz easily. However, it decreases UI/UX consistency and we will be still serving old, outdated content to our users - In my opinion, making it less consistent here is a contra-productive trade-off.

Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) I believe you had spoken to someone from the English proficiency area about this? Where have we got to in addition to Anne and Joe's feedback noted above? Thanks

PS" I believe we decide that these four are in scope and, once the content is better understood, decide which can be done using the template and which require a hand crafted page. But the scope decision is obvious (IMHO).

Agreed to write new content to fit the template for English Proficiency.

Decision: These 4 are in scope, and can be dealt with in the current template, bar English Proficiency, for which the content will be edited as required.

08.10.15

What are we doing with subjects metadata?

Do we need metadata for subjects in the first release?

How will this be resourced?

How will it be signed off?

•  Sam Motion (Unlicensed) to write missing metadata for subject before the end of sprint 19, and compile list of all for circulation. 11 Sep 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to circulate list of metadata intros to faculty managers requiring feedback by a set date. 15 Sep 2015 

08.09.15 - Paul raised the following:

Chrissi, we all had a chat after stand-up and have reached an agreed position (see bullets below). I am now requesting your permission for Sam to write the 30 outstanding metadata descriptions and check the existing one before she leaves for her holiday. You can determine the consultation/approval process (that I am happy to run next week). It will take her off other writing activity but is essential for the first release.

Our approach entails:

• Metadata descriptions will be displayed (as fly outs) for all mega-areas and topics
• Subjects will be hyperlinked name only, without displaying the metadata descriptions
• Subject names link to Homesite subject pages wherever possible, falling back to programme pages or information on faculty and school sites where nothing better exists.

Decision: Metadata to be written and circulated to FM's

Imagery sign off process

What is the process for signing off use of images within the WIP team?

•  Chrissi to document decision following brief discussion with Anne and make team aware of approach.
•  Following feedback from Marketing Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) has requested feedback from Laura (05.10.15) on the Marketing sign off process for images on the web 09 Oct 2015 

Decision:

Images can be sourced by design resource.

Must then be reviewed and agreed with content team, prior to any other review external to the team.

Anne: Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) We could update this item to reflect the decision we need about using existing images from publications on our web topic pages.

Still waiting on Laura's feedback. Concern raised around whether Marketing have the time to sign these off, and will have to ensure planned in well so there is sufficient time to do so without blocking us.

Margaret Petty answered that for the BDI drawing attention in the content is sufficient.

Allan Sylvesteyr has requested that we list the two Inf Systems specialisations as though they were subjects, but take care in the content to make clear that all three are related, that specialisations are optional and that even the courses required for the specialisation should function as guidance.

Closed as we have answers for now. May be addressed on case by case basis.

Options for release 1 - topics taxonomy

1. Release revised subject taxonomy to replace current full subject listing
2. Release revised subject taxonomy, and provide option to also view the current full subject listing
3. Release revised subject taxonomy to replace current full subject listing, and in a subsequent release (circa 1 sprint later) release the search functionality for subjects
4. Release revised subject taxonomy to replace current full subject listing, and monitor analytics to decide whether in a subsequent release (circa 1 sprint later) to release the search functionality for subjects and/or a full subject list.

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to raise with Madeleine or at PMO 24 Sep 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to circulate decision to team and request feedback - meeting held 22.09.15

Decision:

Discussed and agreed with Madeleine 21.09.15

Release revised subject taxonomy, and provide option to also view the current full subject listing

Decision:

As agree for sprint 21, only the CSP reference group will see the programme wireframe.

Topic wireframes can continue to be shared for feedback with faculty managers.

•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to email Mads re freezing groupings 01 Oct 2015 
•  Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) to raise freezing the subject and topic groupings at PMO

Decision:

Madeleine was emailed 01.10.15 and it was raised at PMO on 06.10.15 that topic and subject groupings would now be frozen post release 1 so that the writing can continue with a reduced risk of rework, and BA resource can be addressing other areas of the project.

PS: I think that she has frozen it until the end of October, then we have a brief review and make any changes we need to.