Topic page: Feedback on and questions about the wire frames

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 at leasat made transparent). The following links should help provide context and background:

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

Wonder 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.
1. 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 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:
1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. Electronics and mechatronics topic has 2 subjects: 1 is studied in a Bsc and 1 is studied in a BE and a BE(Hons)
5. 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)
6. Policy topic has 2 subjects: 1 is studied in a BA (minor only) and 1 is studied in a BCom and a BA
7. 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
8. 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
9. Development studies topic has 1 subject studied in a BA and a BSc (while also being a minor in a BSc)
10. 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

Here are some outcomes I'd like to see from the testing, relevant to content and usability generally:

Terminology - esp. 'subjects' and 'courses'.
The About page - that they travel down far enough to see the 'unique selling points'.
Content at the mega level - useful or not? (See P's point 10)
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 supportinve and will help socialise and "sell" the topic approach around the university.