Accepted and approved.
The programming tasks suggested and agreed to at the last meeting have been completed, including search, except for setting up the "self-services" (which in this case means allowing staff/librarians to edit their own extended descriptive fields). The self-services functionality requires NetID/LDAP/SSL certificates. This functionality/service is being worked on by the CMS architecture group.
When self-services is available the extended fields will then become available. Initially, until then, only basic HR provided data such as name, title, department, address etc. will be displayed. (It was noted that this provided more info than we currently have in a more useful interface.) Ling demonstrated what a more advanced profile with extra fields might look like with his own mocked up profile (including headshot-image(not required)). Adding fields, optional or otherwise, with links will not be a problem once policy and design requirements are determined, (examples of likely fields would be links to Facebook, Twitter etc.)
It was noted that the (hierarchical) directory view by library/department is gone so it was suggested that the current directory by library be kept until similar functionality could be developed in Who's Who.
The question was brought to discussion to vote whether Who's Who should be released as it is, or if it should wait until self-services is available. Acknowledging that the services like this will be undergoing constant refinement, it was decided that it can be released without waiting for more features. The CMS architecture team will prepare it for release and keep the Web Board informed.
Blogs, although just out of initial development, went "live" via an announcement to RUL_everyone. Before it can be systematically rolled out some policies and procedures need to be discussed, as well as this blog platform's role/purpose in RUL communications.
Other than policies etc. to be determined, this application would be best rolled out with NetID/LDAP support.
Ling did a quick demonstration showing how this platform allows for a individual blogs, a shared public faculty blog, and shared private faculty blog. (Note: the original requirements were for faculty/librarian blogging).
Further promotion and publicity is pending a wider discussion of guidelines etc. J. Gardner will work with the original testers and requesters, with Womack and Mullens to develop guidelines and future requirements/features. The Web Board will make time in a couple of meetings for this group to bring back their suggested guidelines. After the Web Board comments/amends these guidelines they will have to go to USC for comment/approval.
(The agenda was amended to first take up the Website governance plan and then transition to looking at RACI and the Redesign project plan concurrently).
(handout: draft Web Governance document/outline, draft)
Sterback quickly walked us through the document explaining the purpose of each heading/section and where he got the basic content that he populated each section.
Scope: Should also include RUL's presence in Course Management Systems (Sakai, eCollege, Blackboard etc.)
Roles & Responsibilities:
(handouts: RACI chart v.9 & RUL Website Redesign Project Plan v.9)
The project plan is a roadmap for the next 6 months. Many of the tasks are already ongoing (e.g.: user needs research from the ethnographic study, establishing project governance process etc.)
Purger described some of the ongoing work and how we would start taking the next steps (such as I.2.i Comparative analysis with "Best-of-Breed").
The RACI chart is to clarify the "responsible, accountable, consulted, (and) informed" parties.
Most of fields are filled by the Web Board and the special teams that Web Board will charge. (Web Board will also consult with existing committees/taskforces). USC and Cabinet will be consulted and informed on an ongoing basis in order to not have problems with sequencing meetings to get approvals in the mid-/late summer.
We discussed that that we need to build consensus on what Release 1, in August 2011, should/must/(& feasibly) include.
The question of budget and when/how a visual designer will be brought into the project was brought up.
The version .9 documents were approved to be v. 1.0 documents for immediate use.
(handout: Studying Students to Enhance Library Services at Rutgers University: Principles and Priorities for Moving from Research to Redesign and Development of the Libraries Website: The Final Report of Our Ethnographic Research Project [PDF] (http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/ethnography/reports/ERP_Final_Report.pdf) )
We skipped, in the interest of time, page 1, the Principles, accepting them as logical and as a "given". We moved on to discussing the priorities on page 2. We had many varying discussions on the language of the priorities, past discussions of the issues with the priorities, etc. What we concluded was that what needs to be done initially is to define the problems/issues/opportunities of each of these priorities, at least as a brief whitepaper, and use that to develop tasks. How we allocate and rank these tasks and priorities is dependent on how we are able to express them in Release 1. These priorities will be discussed in many future Web Board meetings. In the near future, J. Gardner, Mullens, and McDonald will start by defining the problem of e-resource discovery for users by writing use cases that will later be reduced to issues/solutions etc.
Mullens agreed to be the point person for the Web Board to bring together the issues of e-resource discovery.
Purger described the relationship of the Web Board and Gwizdka's class and independent study student in that they would be using parts of the web site for source material for their learning goals, and, if they produce useful ideas/interfaces etc. that the Web Board can use, then we will do so.
An independent study student will use Webkit to create a mobile application that can at least do basic searching and browsing of IRIS. Springs will help by sharing the report and discussions from the Mobile Device Task Force. Sterback is consulting on aspects of this project as necessary. Web Board approved the project.
We discussed possible interfaces that the student might consider for their interface redesign. Suggestions included RUcore search/results, indexes, ejournals, LibGuides, and personal portals. Gwizdka will decide what will work best for his class and inform the Web Board.
(At this point, the meeting had run out of time and remaining agenda items will be attended to at the next meeting.)
Next meeting topics include:
Next meeting is Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 10 am in the UL Conference Room, Alexander Library.