Jake Ninness recently mocked-up three profile examples, intended to spark conversation on the content groups (whether tabs, child pages of main sections) and allow us to explore technical and UI options.I will be taking these to the university's research committee for discussion. Before then, I want your input, especially on the description, advantages and disadvantages. But also feel free to signal your preference.

Name and thumbnail	Description	Advantages	Disadvantages	Preferences
Tabbed	Each “content set” is on a different tab and these are aligned along the top of the screen. Location (i.e. in Research) is illustrative only, but serves to spark conversation	Commonly used, so well understood. Only selected tab is displayed, so helps focus users. Addressable by URL parameter.	Challenges with mobile, where the tabs become a consortia (so we need different UIs for different devices). Practical limit on number of tabs (five-ish). Also on length of name of each tab (longer the name, the fewer tabs). Tabbed content may be hidden from search.	PS: Least favorite, but well accepted and understood.
Paged	An overview “parent” page with additional “content sets” on child pages. Like a traditional web site and like some academics have now.	Side-bar navigation similar to the rest of our site. Less restrictions on number of content sets or their names. Addressable by URL.	Click-heavy. Maybe too little to justify a page.
Single page scrollspy	Single page solution, divided into sections, with table of contents navigation. Aka Scrollspy.	Good visibility and access to whole profile. Side-bar navigation looks similar to the rest of our site. Less restrictions on number of content sets or their names. Addressable by URL parameter for sharing scroll. All indexed by search. Works the same way for all staff, no matter how many sections. Extendable over time, without requiring a new pattern. Works well on mobile.	Long page might be unfamiliar	PS: My favorite

Browser not supported