2015-07-10 Team meeting notes

Owned by Jane Young (Unlicensed)
Last updated: Sept 03, 2015 by Anne Nelson (Unlicensed)Version comment
4 min read

Date

Attendees

Absent

Goals

  • Round the table of work ongoing
  • Review of any blockers or issues
  • Any discussion items from the team
  • Upcoming work

Discussion items

ItemWhoDescriptionNotes on discussion
Work in progressJane

How do people feel they are tracking on the current priorities?

I would like a more detailed discussion on the steps needed to be covered in order to be delivering on the goals set for Sprint 17 to ensure we are all on the same page and that the work is covered.

Sprint Planning

This was all covered by the discussion below.

 

PersonasJoe

Overall direction, blockers, an amount of additional work needed to finalize them.

  • When will this work be done and how?
  • Do we need more personas?
  • Anne, Sam & Paul have been discussing over the late few weeks
  • Current personas needs further improvement - these had only ever got to draft stage
  • It was delayed until after the research with students so they could be more informed.
  • Paul is happy to work with them as they are - he doesn't think we need goals for all of them.

TIMING: After the other testing

MORE PERSONAS: Add staff and business personas. Do this as a brainstorming session or do it in Confluence using commenting. Decision was for everyone to read the personas and then have a meeting with the WIP II Team

SHARING PERSONAS: We are creating web personas and we can share these but not develop them in conjunction.

RESPONSIBILITY: Paul will be responsible for this work but will be helped by the team as required. Joe needs to concentrate on development work.

Paul Seiler (Unlicensed) to set up meeting to discuss persona  

User Research progressJoeWhat we learned, what could be improved, an amount of additional testing needed?

Paul recommends we discuss this next catch-up once notes are written.

The findings will be shared at the sprint review.

  • Anne will ensure that the publishing team are keep in the loop about any findings.

The team will need to discuss process improvements. In general the approach was good.

  • Participants didn't realise it would be just them - it would be good to ensure this is communicated next time.

 

Disparate sources of informationJoeToo many different sources of (research/analysis) information and data, sometimes with conflicting, inaccurate or undecided statements. Not clear what's the importance of different pieces of information we have, which should be followed and which is just informational etc.
  • In Confluence there are various documents written by different team members over a longer period of time.
  • Discussed the possibilities of pinning down research better before a sprint.
  • Anne suggested regular review of documentation to make sure ideas haven't been superseded.
  • Paul feels this is unique to the current work around topics. Joe feels that it could happen again around programmes.
  • Anne suggests that we can group things better.

DECISION:

  • Before sprint have discussions in catch-up or separate meetings to confirm the main sets of information to pay attention to and qualify any questions.
  • On the top page of a confluence section that you keep that up to date with what your latest recommendations are.

 

Faculty & Schools Website Structure - subject groupingsPaul

Subject groupings and maybe high level I/A if this will impact much. I am happy to lead the planning of how to get the subject groupings approved and would like to know who wants in on this work.

  • Sam is behind on IA but there is still plenty of time to address this
  • Anne is quite far along with the F&S structure
  • Course planning - simplify this compared to MyQual. Have a solution that doesn't rely on banner level information. Have something that communicates the points system and when they are over. To be discussed further.
  • Undergraduate Majors:
    • all majors map to topics/subjects
    • have a few sentences about majors on the topic pages - need more discussion on solution.

DECISION:

  • Paul to plan the process needed for completing to work for subject/topic and programme (UG and PG)
  • Anne is confident that the Faculty and Schools process is we need to complete this. Anne will document this.

 

Staff ProfilesPaulI would also appreciate some timeline (from David?) on the staff profiles scope decision, as this is probably the most robust of the requirements areas at this stage and being both a part of F&S and CSP is in our priority domains for early attention. I guess this is also of interest because I want to deliver some benefit to the organisation sooner rather than later.
  • Need to develop what is needed in the front end to get a Faculty and School Staff Profile in place.
  • Wider consultation is needed on the back-end solution and on the needs of other stakeholders - this will be done as part of the engagement work.
Meeting on Thursday about  computer groupingsPaul and Joe(Created by Andrew) I had a brief catch up with Joe after the meeting yesterday and there were a number of interesting points that would be good to raise with the rest of the group
  • What is the source of truth for subject and topic naming - is there a way to map terms used by High schools to Subjects and Topics the University is using them.
  • Put more work into search so that people get more intuitive results based on the words they know.
  • Joe will include this as an option in the wireframe.
  • Content needs to include keywords - we could start a list of words and grow it as the work goes on.
  • Teachers have a huge influence on what students will study - they are the major influencer.