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 page content strategy
- Topic page examples
- Subject groupings, relationships and mapping to programmes
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
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
- 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
- I'd prefer to have the content under 'Studying Architecture at Victoria' higher on the page (ie before 'Explore subjects and degrees') - just because that is the marketing pitch. If it's lower, they may follow links away (via 'Explore') and miss the marketing messages.
- Contact link under 'Flexible study options' - need to discuss this with reference to the Topic page: Content strategy (which says call to action is 'degree options' (ie, programme page) - the degree planning advice links are over there). Also with reference to contact block at bottom.
- Bottom contact block (headed: 'We're happy to help'). Wording needs some revision. Also, I'm not sure the bottom links are correct. The content strategy lists 'Study support' and 'Student life' as secondary links from the About page - I'd like to see them there, and some of the others don't need to be there. Link to 'Help centre' - I really like this idea, but doubt we'll be able to do it for go-live. Maybe add the idea to Storytime or Chrissi's Wishlist?
- Area for Maori and Pasifika - like this, but think it could be called Student support, provide one sentence about what's available, and then one sentence (approx) about what's available for Maori and Pasifika. How will we approach items like this, which we'll have on every page?
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.
Testing
From Anne
- ‘About’ page – does the user scrolls down to read the ‘marketing’ info that is lower on the page (ie, the content under the heading ‘Studying Architecture at Victoria’) – or do they head off using the links above that point them to Subjects and degrees, and Careers?
- Terminology. Actually, we don’t have a lot of it – hurray! So just a few points below:
- I’d like to understand how they get on with the PG/UG/minor only ‘buttons’. Do they understand what these terms mean – and do they understand what the buttons indicate?
- Where a tooltip is provided, do they use it?
- The word ‘Subject’ is introduced early on the ‘About’ page – and is also a tab label. What does this word say to students? (Might need to ask if they don’t offer it up.)
- Nav and pathway - a bit of an obvious one. That they can find their way through it.
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)
- 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 supportive and will help socialise and "sell" the topic approach around the university.
From Theresa (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.
From Kristina (CSP Reference Group) and Melissa
- 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.
From Adrienne (CSP Reference Group) and John Randal
- 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.Content strategy
- User stories
Content changes proposal
Changeset proposal (~ based on prototype v1.0)
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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.
From Paul
General
- I like much of it and see that, for UG degrees and domestic students, this will work well.
About programme
- Bring action bar to front (on all tabs), so content scrolls up behind it, not in front.
- Breadcrumbs: Are we going to use UG degrees or UG programmes?
- Would image behind BAS be the same as for a topic (if it was in fact the same thing)? Is this type of familiarity good? Could certainly work for "subject-major" pairs. If you want?
- Are we suggesting Enrol (of Apply as a better word) too early. Please look at the suggested process and lets decide whether we or it needs to change.
- Intro/About: Maybe try not to state all the majors in the first sentence, as they listed in a "table" soon after in the Degree overview
- Where is the Programme options section/content? Seems to be missing
- Degree overview: Could the video block be swapped out and a profile/testimony/story come in? They already exist in pour publications so could be re-purposed?
- International disclaimer: I like the concept but the wording will need work (probably no 3 year UG degree that is not suitable for international students, suggesting another programme could be challenging (on what basis/data?), etc. I have a specific section below for international feedback, and we will of course speak to Charles.
- Show domestic fee or, if international is set, international, not both.
- Tell me how the next related events block works (and note that I think this is a valuable feature)? Date sensitive? Location sensitive? Related to the level of degree I am viewing?
- Could we also have one on the topic/subject page?
- Where do the major links take you? And what do they do?
- Similar programmes: A good idea (and might be how we can suggest something else similar) but do we need a content/data source for this? Is it only at degree level? Faculties might baulk at giving another programme if outside of their faculty, so we need to proceed with care here. Probably more sensible at the PG level, where there are far more options and some/many "nest" with each other.
- Great to know: Content needs improvement, but block is useful.
- Should this page/tab be where we give the textual description of the majors, rather than on the planning as you have it now? Seems that this type of information might sit better on an about page than a planning. User might even be able to select one here, if not done by which subject page they arrived from.
- What you will study: Why are there two titles the same? I have changed the second to "Further study". The content for the first one seems a bit lame.
- Need more information: Maybe swap out Student allowances (and use it for a how to fund your study section on the fees and scholarships tab) and replace it with a link to the Faculty (as they "mange" the degree)
Planning programme (excluding the degree/major rules and planner, which have their own sections below)
- Introduction might seem to similar to what should be on the apply tab
- How will we denote default major (based on subject value)?
- Second major is extremely rare in BAS so maybe leave it unset for this example
- My understanding is that the drop downs allow me to select 1 or 2 of the listed majors for the BAS and that the link will (essentially) select all.
- Following on from point 4:
- How do we handle 10 or 20 or 40 majors?
- Is the purpose to let somebody learn about the rules of each major he/she is interested in (to compare few or even more, even if impossible to study them all) or to select a manageable number that one could study and see how they "play together"?
- Where do we handle listed minors/other subjects (see other BA subjects example)
- Do we need to allow users to see a listing of all other external majors (meaning those from other degrees) that are (usually) permitted for inclusion for the degree in question? Working with these would need Advisor input or assistance.
- Should the whole select major block be a little further down the page? I know that this will throw out the "table of content" but it seems out of place being this high up. But then it is really required early on, so maybe we are just missing a little of the context at the top of the page, eg "Students are required to select one of the following four majors in which they focus their courses and learning. Please select one from the following list."
- We probably also need another pattern for the "select major block, one for when a second major (listed or external) is extremely unlikely and discouraged. This pattern would apply to BAS and maybe also the BE
- Why is (Major #1) in brackets in the table?
- Not quite sure where the Major #1, Major #2 and Other major anchor links would take me? Shouldn't the block have major rules (see point 7 below)
- Admission is the first hurdle and requires meeting university entrance requirements: Domestic differs from international, who have a whole different process.
- Is it a little over-stated to have uni admission stated so clearly on this tab? Would it be better handled on the Apply tab?
- Mention of continuing under the BBSc is too strong. Lets leave that for more personalised advice.
- In major areas do we want to link them back to Careers on the subject section of the topic page?
- Challenge of two majors: While I appreciate how hard it is to present information for two majors on a small screen it is probably nonsensical to show degree planning examples sequentially, when the majors are studied concurrently.
- About undergraduate degrees might also be a valuable link for the "Need more information? block at the bottom of the page.
Degree and Major Rules
- I like the concept of each rule having its own block. However, where have you presented the courses required for a major? For example, Landscape Architecture requires LAND 211, 212, 221, 222, 251, 261, 311, 312 and 321, as well as SARC 351, 352 and 362.
- Might have to use wording that more closely follows the statute, as in the publications. I think we will be forced to, so maybe lets at least start off with something closer/more accurate.
- What is an optional requirement? An oxymoron? Try "additional requirements" or "more information" if they are not actually requirements.
- Do we intend the text under the major section to be the same as under the subject (on the topic page)? Always?
- Do we have to mention replacement courses? Exceptions?
- Rule block for hurdle to enter second year: Is there other information we should link to or provide? Would this really be an "additional requirement", as it is not narrowly a programme point/course rule?
- Should the additional requirement in the major section be different to the requirements in the degree section?
- If Scribe (the business rules engine that powers MyQual/Degree Works) has an API (or other suitable interface) we might have a good source of truth to help the "show courses" buttons (and for planner (see next section)
- We might have inadequate data to return degree courses (as listed in the Schedule A and sometime B), even using discipline. Will try to learn more, either from Kristina and Melissa in FHSS or Teresa in SAS. As in point 6 of the previous section, we can do this more easily when the degree is highly prescribed and with only one major than we can with the flexible degrees.
- If we leave buttons here (before a major is selected) we accept that the purpose is to show a range of courses that might be suitable, with few rules enforced as to what would be make a legitimate programme.
Planning your programme of study
I think this whole planner has become a little unwieldy and needs tightening up. To help with this I think we need to discus and answer a few questions:
- Do we want a minimum viable product (MVP)? This means a version of this element that is much simpler than what is currently designed so we can release/go live with something and then refine it as resource allows.
- My view is yes, as it is better to to this well and release it, while exploring how we can access the business rules in Scribe to power a smarter, more interactive solution.
- Do we display the "image" (in lieu of an interactive planner) before a major is selected?
- My view is yes for flexible degrees (as we probably can't resource an image for each major (let along combinations of double majors) but after for prescribed degrees (e.g. Bachelor of Architectural Studies)
- Do we display the planner (any version that has some interactive nature) at the degree level or only after a major is specified? It is easier to return course level results once the query is tighter (the same would apply to the button on the degree rules in the section above)
- My view is only once a major is selected/known, as I don't believe there is enough value in interacting when the main drivers are not yet known/set.
From simple to fully fledged here are some options:
- A static image of the degree without any specified major for the programme section, with a more informative version of the image for where there is a major specified. We would say that this is an example only and display a generic degree example (one per degree) where majors are not referred to by name. We would just say "200 level major course" or "Core BCom course" or "Elective"
- Slightly more complicated is to, with images only, cater for double major (with or without a minor?).
- And more complicated again is a larger range of static examples so we have one that is relevant to any major the user specifies.This is the first appearance of a slider where we would have the slider to show actual courses and is also the first interactive version, albeit basic.
- The next step would be to allow individual course blocks, when not specified to a single course, to return the range of possible values when clicked on. This is where we would first offer the feature to email it to yourself (and SRAO) or "save"it (using fees calculator machinery).
- The next step is to populate the course block with the one selected, potentially reducing the list of subsequent displays by this earlier selection.
- And so on
- We need course colouring for the five course types shown for the BCom (pg 69 of GUS): Core, 1st major, 2nd major, minor, and elective. Not all degrees need all five, but at least one does.
- Lets not use schedule, as it means something in the calendar. Maybe Degree example, as in the GUS
- Explain to me the reason for the General courses / Example courses switch.
- I would prefer it if core, specialisation and elective were visibly different due to style, not use of the words. Lets make it more like the GUS, unless we can do better and then ask them to change to be like the web
- Please try to balance the trimesters out a little better.
- How would the text about each year differ from that on the About tab?
Fees programme
- Where is all the fees information? I expected a breakdown or some more information about the summary fact. Easier for international, as they have a whole budgeting block/module. For domestic, can we surface any of this information.
- Can we carry a subject/major value through to the scholarship database so they can display a pre filtered list of matching scholarships based on the subject value?
- Enrol now and contact advisors buttons seem a little prominent for this page?
- Student Finance and fees people have good material. Lets reuse some of it (see VBS comments below for contact person)
Apply programme
- I like the early intercept and divert for international students. They do not belong here so lets clear this up early on.
International programme requirements
- Switch to swap/change between international and domestic (so that whatever version a user has he/she can change this if they want to see the other version
- Different contact block (Jo, if you think the domestic block need one international mention, then do the same in the international one but still have switching blocks
- Different application process, so any mention (on earlier tabs) and the whole Apply tab will need to pull different content for international
- International have a database/content source for country specific entry criteria. How can we access and surface this? Do we want /need to?
- Show only international fees in the summary/icon, with a whole different fees tab for international. Might be able to do it all in our app, but might have to link out to VI for the richer information they are required (by law) to provide.
- A disclaimer will be required for some programmes (or major choices), with one or more or a small number of pre-defined reasons. Need to unpack this further and write a user story to describe it.
...
From Anne
Great job Joe! It's nicely designed
I'll review the content (including button labels and link text) properly after the next round of improvements - will that work for you? Sam and I will do that together.
Here I've included content tweaks only where they really jump out.
About page
Heading: Remove (BAS) from the heading (throughout) - put it in the intro text instead.
Video - KYM? If there is no video, we might use a [standalone] student quote instead?
International students' block
Good to see it here. However, let's change the wording so we don't say something isn't available (that's negative - we need a positive twist on it). How about:
International students
Architecture is available for domestic (NZ) students only. However, international students can study Building Science at Victoria University. (link)
Fees icon and text - we have to cover ourselves by telling them that it's an estimate only. Eg:
Fees for domestic student (est)
OR
Fees for doomestic student
$16,000/year
(estimate)
Next related event - great to see this here! Suggest you reword this to: Next event (the context is obvious).
'Similar programme' - reword to 'similar degrees'
Acronym for Bachelor of Building Science is BBSc
Useful high-school subjects
Rename: Useful secondary school subjects
Not sure this would be easy to do for degrees like BA?
Great to know
I like this a lot! Is it a summary of key points from below?
Transferring students' block:
I see this more on the degree planning page. (Transferring students will read the About page along with everyone else, but need help on the next page.)
Enrol in Architecture - reword to: Enrol in BAS
Contact block
0800 Victoria - the grey text will be hard for some people to see, and won't meet accessibility standards.
Degree planning page
The main heading (Bachelor of Arch Studies) is at the top of each tab page - it looks a bit odd. We used a different approach on topic pages.
Box for choosing majors:
This was a little confusing.
I think the purpose of the major box is unclear. I assume that it sets the info that displays below? It needs a relationship with the info below so that is clear - eg, through design, or through text (not ideal).
The view is a little confusing. It would work well if it opened with: What major would you like to study? At the moment it opens with: 'Show info only for'.
Show info only for: I found that heading a little confusing - I wasn't sure what it related to.
Second major in: I think they will all choose a second major, just because the option is there and they don't really know how university works.
I think we should (MUST) tell them that choosing a major from a different programme is an option. How about this text: Some students choose to study two majors ('double major'). Here you can choose another major from within the discipline, to see what courses ('papers') you'll study. However, at Victoria you can choose a second major from almost any area of study.
However, I'd prefer the page to just have a single major. You could say:
Here you can see what courses you'll study for a [landscape design] major. Sometimes students choose two majors ('double major').
Entry requirements
I'd put these after the degree requirements. I think it's best to tell them about the programme, then tell them how to get into it. But happy to discuss - I'm flexible on that.
I'm not sure about putting admission requirements under 'Entry requirements' - they are different things and should be kept separate. This is actually where I'd say that entry to the BAS is open, but to year 2 is restricted (including option choices).
Degree requirements
Suggest remove the sentence 'To finish this degree...' at the top - we don't need it.
Suggest nesting the 'minimum' text as below:
Get at least 360 points in total.
This must include:
- Minimum of xxx
- Minimum of xxx
- Minimum of xxx
Gain entry ... I wouldn't include that here - this is very much about getting into year 1.
xxx (first major)
We don't have useful school subjects by major - only by degree. We'd have to ask each academic involved for these, for every major. I'm not sure the content is high value enough to justify this - but let's discuss.
'Leads into:' Nice idea but might be out of context (ie, what leads into xxx?) Just cos we're under a heading: Landscape Architecture. You could say 'Degree leads into'
Button: Enrol into Architecture
Rename: Enrol in BAS (or Enrol in Bachelor in Architectural Studies)
Time left to apply - great to see!
Additional requirements
I'm not sure I'd highlight this here - where they are looking for info about getting in and getting started. Let's put it on the About page - maybe under Year 2 or in the 'Good to know' block?
Schedule and courses heading
Two really difficult words for school students - and difficult to explain in a heading. Why not call it:
What you'll study (as on Topic page)
or Courses
or Courses you'll study.
The intro text needs to use the word course and explain what it means, fairly early on. Try: In your first year, you'll study courses ('papers') like design, environment...
I found the course boxes a little unclear:
I wasn't sure about the difference between General courses and Example courses. In the current info, Example courses is 'Example degree' - that might be better?
I wasn't sure why some boxes have courses listed while others have 'Elective course' and 'Core course'.
I'd do away with words like 'core course' and 'elective course' and call them 'Compulsory' and 'Choice' or 'Optional'.
I wasn't sure about the link wording 'Hide recommended courses'. Why are they called 'recommended'? Perhaps just say 'Hide courses'.
Year 2
Says it's specific to the specialisation you've chosen - but we're on that now - perhaps just say: 'Covers relevant technological...'
Other majors
Nice
Fees and schols
Small content tweak - Other study costs - remove the word 'living'
We have to tell them it's an estimate only. See previous note
Not sure about /y
might have to use:
/year
OR
/pa
School leavers' scholarships
Remove (is a duplicate of what's further down).
Programme-related scholarships & awards
I like the way this is integrated, but wonder about its value for school leavers who really just want to get into uni.
If we decide to keep this:
Change the heading to: Scholarships and awards for Architecture students
Then add a sentence saying: Below are some of the scholarships and awards you can apply for while you're a student.
OR
During your study, you can apply for other scholarships and awards.
Apply and enrol
Love the visual look to this.
'Check that you meet the admission criteria' - change to 'Check that you meet the admission criteria for university.'
GES - would be better to put it in full. But no worries if it's too long.
Plan your study - can't see it, is obscured by a duplicate menu in the wireframe.
Apply to enrol where under tick box - this is a duplicate of heading in step 3. Change to: Get an offer of study
Key dates
Can this be automated? If not, let's discuss with Tash and Tania what might be involved in keeping it updated.
...
From Charles (CSP Reference Group)
...
From Martin (CSP Reference Group)
...
From Theresa (CSP Reference Group)
...
From Kristina (CSP Reference Group) and Melissa
- Not all programmes will be suitable for international students, and not even all courses (a few exceptions that are only available to domestic students)
- Transferring students should be directed to the faculty office, not Student Recruitment
- With registration of interest becoming a year-round thing would be better if called Enrol now could be called Apply now. It would then work whenever in the year somebody viewed it.
- Need a note to say that there are outside majors (and maybe mention the other flexibilities) and that you should speak to the faculty office
- Selecting a major: This would be better down lower, after the generic programme rules.
- Rules for the major: For some majors it will be hard to specify many courses (e.g. Asian Studies) meaning the list of suitable courses will be very long.
- Maybe we rename other majors to be "other BAS majors and subjects". See the BA page for an example.
Font size of fees is Too Large
...
From Adrienne (CSP Reference Group) and John Randal
- Mapping between programme length (in trimesters) and points is not linear so will have to be written for each specific programme.
- Similar programme should probably be "alternative" and only entered when appropriate
- Can we use location based information to show accommodation (at least as a link) to people outside of Wellington?
- Instead of degree courses say "from BAS courses"
- Maybe swap the order of the rules where there is a "+" to say "at least 180 points from the 2XX and 3XX BAS courses as part of a minimum of 210 points at from the 2XX and 3XX courses" (Paul's comments: Not any clearer, but we can try playing around with the wording and layout)
- On the point above, is the button on the wrong line? Or do we need a second button?
- Would degree planner enforce any "workload balance"?
- How do we show "important" courses? (PS: I forget what this means).
- Degree planner: Would be good to not suggest (or even block/warn) impossible timetable combinations. Not sure how you can know/tell.
- On fees and scholarships, should it be called fees and funding? Culd we link to Student Loans, maybe also Student Allowances eligibility page? Talk to Stephanie Hunter, as she owns the financing your study page.