Page Comparison

Why is this required?

What benefit does it deliver?

Name of phase, or area within a phase

e.g. Topics

Your name and source if it came from someone else e.g.

Chrissi, CSP group suggestion (from Kristina M-K)

The date its discussed as a group or reviewed by the project manager)

DD.MM.YYYY

Any comments from group discussion or project manager

e.g. Splendid idea! Will be escalated to PMO for consideration for phase 3.

Priority from project manager after review, using MoSCoW

e.g. M

Would see rule differences, in particular which courses I must do and where I have choices

COO has a user story for comparing two courses.

PG programmes may well require a compare two qualification options.

What components would you need to focus on to help a student to make a comparison.

There could be more value in comparing between programmes (although potentially more complicated).

How much do we want to get into advice or are we purely just providing information side by side.

Assess again once a programme page has been developed.

Review these important pages and consider how they could be more concise and readable for online audiences - add some design? Videos OK - or need a rethink?

Planning your degree and courses

Conjoint and double degrees

How degrees are structured

Maybe even Perhaps also some of the similar content in related areas, such as:

Planning career options

The homesite glossary is also a supporting tool that could be a candidate for review.

Much used by secondary students in user sessions, but pages long and wordy - they just visually scanned them.

PS: We must make some changes, as they refer to the world the way it is now (i.e. subject pages), even if we can not redevelop these pages completely.

Noted could be something that the core team could develop in parallel.

Paul noted that these pages will need to be updated in some way once CSP is rolled out otherwise the content will be incorrect, therefore noted as a must but only at the level to which incorrect content will need to be changed.

Great idea. Would need to be reviewed alongside other central service units, specifically SRAO.

Not in scope for WIPII but could be addressed as part of BAU. FYI Tash Davey (Unlicensed) and David Archibald (Unlicensed).

Nathan Irwin thinks the only reason for this non-functional requirement of Internet Explorer 9 support is here just because most of the campus computers have extremely outdated IE9 browser installed. If that's the case, upgrade of IE9 could improve a security of local computers AND help us change this requirement to higher (and less problematic) IE version. And less problems = more time to work on something productive.

Another problem is with outdated Firefox browser. This old version has got pretty serious security bugs which allow hacker to fully control computer (i.e. track user's keystrokes, use camera [if local computers have one in-built] to record person in front of the computer etc.).
 

Urgent need of Firefox upgrade could be used as an argument to upgrade IE9 as well and most of all - change the requirement to stop supporting IE9.

Removal of critical security risks (Firefox).

If we would stop supporting IE9, we would save a lot of time needed to test & develop fall-backs and IE9-only bug fixes.

Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) spoke to Des Kelly in ITS who believed that the browers they support are based on the applications.

Andrew Bredenkamp will pick up sending over our supported browsers from a web perspective to ITS (when prioritised) and this may help drive some consideration in ITS on changes.

Not something the web team can drive, but we can make suggestions.

W

Live chat to our support ( i.e. https://www.zopim.com/ ) could be technically really easy to implement and start using right away. Also, any costs to run and maintain the service are usually around 20-30$/per month as it's SaaS (Software as a Service) solution.

Advantages of such a tool are:

• Ability to communicate in real-time (and solve school leavers' problems immediately)
• Personal approach, building engagement and relationship between Uni and prospectives
• etc.

Need to consider who would be the resource behind this - likely SAS, more specifically SRAO.

Not something the web team can drive.

Could be a service we offer/support technically? FYI David Archibald (Unlicensed)

Review the function of the PDF forms that are on faculty sites - eg: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/fhss/student-admin/forms

Consider whether some could be improved by: (1) making better PDF forms (eg, can be filled in online; better design) (2) replacing with online forms and back-end processes (eg, email, database).

Do we want to continue to use PDF forms?

Is this a priority?

Can we move towards web forms?

Noted as could, as this may come up again in the F&S area.

Also may overlap with any planned work in the wider team. FYI - Nathan Irwin, Tash Davey (Unlicensed), David Archibald (Unlicensed)

Check sites that list offerings by tertiary organisations to ensure their info about victoria is accurate. If it isn't, contact them to suggest amendments.

Example: http://www.teachnz.govt.nz/thinking-of-teaching/qualifications-information-for-2016/

• Nigel Riley to pick up with Megan in Marketing about other sites referencing Victoria's academic offerings accurately. 23 Oct 2015

Not in scope for WIPII, now with wider Marketing as worthwhile area to review.