Topic page – Feedback on and questions about the wireframes

As we now have a set of wireframes 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:

Content changes proposal

Changeset proposal (~ based on v1.3 and v1.4)

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.
1. 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.
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 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:
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

‘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:
1. 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?
2. Where a tooltip is provided, do they use it?
3. 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.