STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes of October 8, 2012 Meeting

Present:
Au, Deodato, Just, J Gardner, Koruth, Ling, McDonald, Mills, Purger, Mullen, Sterback, Anderson, Agnew, R Gardner.
Excused:
Gwizdka, Lotts

Agenda

  1. Website Project timeline (Purger)
  2. Design status (Koruth)
  3. Search Team update on the summer design refresh (Search Team)
  4. Webmaster report (McDonald)
  5. Regular meeting time selection
  6. Miscellaneous

1. Website Project Timeline (Purger)

Introductory remarks: http://www4.libraries.rutgers.edu/redesign/101812-web-board-minutes-and-documents

A. For the Release 1 goals to be achieved by the deadlines, Purger asks the Web Board WB to support the IIS web team's allocation of maximum time to the redesign project and prioritize it over all other incoming projects. The WB is asked to make a statement ratifying this.

Decision: Web Board acknowledges the same.

B. Migration of RUL website to Drupal 6 was completed on 10/8/12.

C. The high-availability architecture will allow, theoretically, for the RUL website to always be available without service interruptions.

D. The SOLR/Lucene search engine will begin implementation in December 2012. It represents a risk factor relating to how SOLR/Lucene will work in our mixed environment.

E. In January 2013, depending on how milestones will have been achieved, a decision will be made as to whether the redesigned site should be released as a full launch or as a beta version.

F. The governance document will have to be finalized and content owners for each area identified.

G. Agnew indicates a concern that December looks very full, and the timeline seems to be very tight because of the holidays. Suggests that the process of securing redesign approvals from USC and Cabinet be moved to November. Purger responds that committing to securing approvals in November might not be feasible because the redesign might not be ready by then. Agnew suggests that Cabinet be provided a sneak peek, before trying to secure approval. Purger says that previews will be provided regularly by way of an open house for RUL staff and faculty. Redesign updates will be sent out using e-mail to the USC, via RUL_everyone. Moreover, Purger, Gardner and AULs involved are members of both the WB and the USC, so there are enough channels for information about the redesign to be conveyed. Ling points out that the goals in the timeline are not hard-coded into the assigned month because there will be some shifting of milestones from month to month based on speed and stability of work performed. Concern expressed that RUL community be better appraised of developments in the redesign project.

Decision: Apart from open-house and communication between the WB and USC, an e-mail will be sent out to RUL_everyone with the minutes of each WB meeting. The minutes will include developments in the redesign project on a monthly basis.

H. Agnew asks that creation of subject taxonomies be coordinated and integrated with RUcore.

I. Sterback says he will notify Bob Warwick and Stephanie Bartz to look out for changes in the colors and appearance of the library catalog, to match with the redesign. Deodato suggests that, in the interest of time and successfully meeting milestones, customizing the style of the library catalog could go on the backburner, since the same process would have to be carried through from start to finish should the library acquire a new discovery layer later in 2013. Purger acknowledges that it might prove to be temporary, but a minimum amount of design matching should be undertaken, for the sake of consistency.

Decision: Some catalog design matching (color and banner) will be undertaken to match the redesign.

J. Deodato says that it is important to identify content managers (including 'help' content) earlier in the timeline because they have to create the content. Purger says that developing content is a duty of the Information Architecture and Help teams, which must resume as soon as possible. Gardner emphasizes importance of identifying content managers because a lot of content on the redesigned site will be new and highly revised. Agnew recommends that the migration focus on the new look-and-feel first, and only thereafter on the majority of content changes. Purger says that content manager identification can only proceed after content migration. In the meantime, the appropriate subteams and WB members could coordinate with non-WB member content owners, where it must happen sooner.

Decision: By the next web board meeting, Information Architecture content inventory will be examined, issues will be flagged and content will begin to be assigned to groups/individuals.

K. Agnew also emphasized the need to establish high editorial standards, a consistent style that is jargon-free and bears in mind the university's commitment to multiculturalism. Purger reminds that the diversity committee has a report that speaks to the issue of multicultural communication.

Decision: Agnew will identify a resource to advise us on communication for a multicultural world.

L. Ling advises the board that he and Yang Yu (IIS) are working on a document that will explicate Solr/Lucene.

M. Anderson asks why Camden and Newark libraries' local home pages are not on the timeline. Purger says it is not because they have been overlooked but because IIS has yet to gather comprehensive information on how these subsites will work in the redesigned environment.

N. Gardner notes that UMDNJ has four or five unique websites that have to be incorporated under the banner of the redesign. Purger responds that we are still awaiting the reports of integration committees. UMDNJ will have to incorporate branding changes. Design and look-and-feel changes will be planned together in accordance with integration policies yet to be agreed upon.

O. Mills asks if a full launch in January 2013 would not impact instruction in the libraries. WB acknowledges the concern but agrees with Agnew that the launch should continue nonetheless with IIS providing support for bibliographic instruction (BI), if needed.

Decision: IIS will work with BI coordinator(s) to ease in design changes.

P. Agnew will work with Sam to redesign Video Mosaic Collaborative.

2. Design Status

ttp://www4.libraries.rutgers.edu/redesign/101812-web-board-minutes-and-documents

A. Based on responses and input from the previous design discussion held by the WB, Koruth presents a banner and navigation system wireframe for the redesign that proposes two changes in the navigation system and banner.

B. The Search tabs will include a new tab called "Site search". This will allow for searching the contents of the website via the tabs, in addition to searching the catalogue.

C. The Search Tabs will be incorporated into the banner on all sub pages. This will replace the expanding "Quick Links" section that was previously proposed.

Decision: The WB unanimously accepts and supports the changes because they simplify the navigation system and allow the Search tabs to be persistent across the website.

3. Search Team update on the summer design refresh:

A. Deodato, Gardner and Mills report on feedback and usage data that was collected to evaluate the design of the beta search interface. The team share the following highlights:

  1. A total of 70 comments were received regarding the search interface (some via the online survey and others
  2. The majority of comments came from librarians
  3. The two most commonly expressed concerns related to the number of search options within the Books & Media tab (18%) and the absence of a link to the catalog's advanced search (18%)
  4. Other concerns included the placement of Articles over Books & Media as the default tab (14%), the performance and functionality of Searchlight (11%), the lack of a separate tab for media (7%), and the inability to carry search terms across tabs (5%)
  5. In its first month of operation, the search interface handled a total of 53,664 searches
  6. Among total searches, 44% were for Books & Media, 36% were for Articles, 13% for Journals, and 7% for Reserves. (In terms of unique searches, Articles actually leads Books & Media by over 300 searches.)
  7. In Books & Media the most commonly selected search type was Words Anywhere (56%)
  8. In Articles the most commonly selected search type was General (86%)
  9. Help content received much higher usage than expected which, according to comments, may be accidentally due to the fact that the icons are situated too close to the search button
  10. The "View all databases" link within the Articles tab received over 2,000 clicks, suggesting that users know how to find our indexes & databases when Searchlight does not meet their needs

Decisions (Based on the data collected):

B. Anderson reminds the WB of her request that the Search tabs allow searches to be limited by library group (Camden and Newark). Sterback advises that he would like to reach out to the LCC to understand better the ramifications of making such a change. Purger suggests that this next version of the Search tabs be labeled to reflect the next round of changes and inform users that their feedback has been taken into account. Discussion follows.

Decision: Create news item identifying changes in Search tabs and publish to the RUL site. RUL Everyone will also be notified of the changes.

C. Just points out that since the website refresh was released, the frequency of chat usage has gone down considerably. Could this be because the Search tabs are front and center and are being used to answer queries that would otherwise be directed to librarians on chat? Au suggests that we explore if there is a reduction in the simplest questions like, "How do I find a book", because that might indicate increased usage of the Search tabs, and not the reduced discoverability of the Reference Chat. Mullen agrees that it is important to look at transcripts of questions asked in chat. Purger emphasizes importance of this investigation because that will affect the prominence given to the Ask-A-Librarian feature in the redesigned site.

Decision: Anderson will take this to the USC, which should look into answering the question. D. Deodato reports that DIG has completed updating the configuration of Searchlight. Selectors were invited to review the databases in their subject areas and submit any changes via an online form. A total of twelve responses were received. DIG updated subject areas according to the feedback received and used the database listings on the library website to guide configuration of the remaining subjects. DIG is also currently offering workshops to all librarians and staff who wish to learn more about the functionality and configuration of Searchlight. It is hoped that these activities will help improve performance while raising greater awareness of the product's strengths and limitations. Anyone with questions or concerns about Searchlight are encouraged to contact dig@sakai.rutgers.edu.

4. Webmaster report (McDonald) (New items since August 7, 2012):

A. CMS Architecture: On 10/8/12, the website was migrated to a new server.

Also certain site sections were updated from Drupal 5 (which is now retired) to Drupal 6. Changes that can be observed today are that directories moved from www4 to www.libraries. All forms are now driven by Drupal. The new server will support the site redesign.

B. Indexes and Databases: Migration changes

ProQuest: as the existing descriptions are reviewed and new descriptions written, all use advanced search as a default.

Existing databases have had their URL's updated. Many new databases are pending descriptions.

Some new ProQuest products are

Name changes:

New databases:

Indexes on Drupal 6 will allow us to generate 'reports'(lists) for management and review
e.g. 'show me just the databases…"
Access Right: restricted, unrestricted, restricted-no proxy challenge
Funder: NJKI, VALE etc.

C. Projects : These projects have already been scheduled for this fall -- NJmaps, Voting, Digital exhibits for SCUA, VMC content updates

D. Miscellaneous tasks: A wireless support form was created by Ling by request of Ed Smith.

5. Meeting times

Meeting times for future web board meetings will be posted via Sakai, so members can see the dates.

6. Miscellaneous

There was nothing to report.

The meeting was concluded at 4:00 pm.



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/web_board/minutes/web_board_12_10_08.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)