Page Comparison

Document status: Under construction

Design: Tired, complex, unattractive and difficult to use.
Content: Too much on most pages and too many layers of page. Maintenance is time consuming so time-sensitive information is often out of date. Quality suffers. (e.g. spelling mistakes, links that don't go anywhere).
Content Management: Lack of time and resources (especially writer) for web content. Too many editors. Too little time for many to become/stay proficient in Squiz.
Staff profiles: Difficult to maintain, so often out of date. Very dated/tired look. Poor representation of the University.
Channels: Too many channels with the same information as the web (and as each other). Students still miss information despite repeat listings. Would like social media listed more prominently.
Analytics: Needs to be more widely accessible and used, especially data on goal conversions.
Search: Site search doesn't give useful results.

...

Why are they different?: Future and current undergraduate students didn't understand that faculty and school sites existed as separate sites "This should all be one thing – school, faculty and Victoria. We are one university and there is no reason why it can’t all be together."
Very low engagement: With f&s sites only used for a few things (to find a person, get course info, access a shortcut to a tool (via the header menu)).
Staff profiles via site search: To avoid knowing in what school to look for somebody, but also missing f&s news, events and other homepage content.
Prefer email and Black BoardBlackboard: As channels for information from Victoria, with all students also following relevant pages on Facebook.
Postgraduate students: Greater awareness of separate faculty and school sites, but still had a very narrow information need (staff profiles, administrative services, forms, etc).
Secondary school students: Students didn't understand the roles of faculties and of schools at all.

...

...