A need has been identified for Aggregated Research Services web pages. These web pages will provide services for faculty looking for information in specialized areas by providing it from one location that aggregates resources within RUL. Purger asks what the timeline for this project is and where in the site map it would be available. Just and Deodato indicate that the portal will be provided under the services tab for faculty. Agnew suggests that it be labeled “Research data and communication”, and that it be redundantly available on the web pages.
Decision: Mullen will be the content lead and developers on this project will be McDonald and Koruth.
Barnett shows the project management plan for the RUL redesign as devised in Intellect. Purger goes through the plan, demonstrating the granular level to which tasks and subtasks have been laid out and where they stand in terms of progress. The intention of this exercise is to indicate to the web board the scope of the project and the details of its implementation.
Decision: see next point.
(http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/demo/webboard_mak/pres_1.html) Ling provides an overview of content types using the news content type as an exemplar. He discusses how this fits into the site, starting with the front page needs, explains how the new content type with its fields and template support the displays and the logic driving those displays. Along with fields, 'tags' also support the display logic. Examples of tags are 'news story type' which includes tags for event, new resource, etc., which in turn allows a list of recent new resources, or upcoming events to be listed.
Koruth shows a graphical wireframe of a news article page. She explained how we are using a grid structure for layout. She transitioned into a slide that showed an example style guide with palette and transitioned to a slide that showed how elements of the wireframe and style guide/palette could look (with sample content). The goal of this process was to provide a window into the redesign process, while also showing a few examples of developments so far. Grace asks if we could, for news stories like the Henrietta Lacks story, lead users to other resources...like results in the Catalog, related books, and related research. This would be relevant from a library and research perspective.
Outcome (for items 2 and 3): Web board is provided with insight into the redesign and build process.
Individual library home pages (Purger, Koruth): Koruth shows a wireframe for individual library pages (http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/demo/webboard_mak/pres_5.html). The wireframe for these homepages is devised with the intent of providing a customizable page for individual libraries that want to emphasize their own content, while retaining the visual stamp and navigation of the main RUL redesigned website. Purger explains that we want these pages to integrate into the new design (and Drupal) and achieve consistency, but allow individual libraries to modify some blocks for their own purposes. Some libraries may be highly customized, some smaller ones perhaps not so much. Some aspects would be required, like (large) search tabs, chat, and providing address, phone numbers, and map links; as well as a news panel, but other aspects could be changed for special news, functionality (like a twitter feed) etc.
Boyle and Just express concern about finding people to update individual library home pages and question the need for these pages. Au asserts importance of Dana homepage.
Decision: Web Board recognizes the importance of providing individual homepages for libraries like Robeson and Dana, to name a few. These will replace the current homepages, once the redesigned RUL site is available.
McDonald demonstrates landing pages with content as provided by J. Gardner, R. Gardner and M. Lotts. J. Gardner asks to see a template/wireframe for landing pages. Koruth says that a style guide will ultimately be applied to all elements of landing pages. Individual wireframes/templates will depend on the content in the pages themselves. Just reminds the group that rewriting the content for the site in a conversational manner, and review of informational design for each page will be done later. This first pass is to prepare the website for the beta release. Agnew suggests that an Excel document be created to start a page audit. This will list pages in the current site so that we can return to them and style them. This will also capture problematic pages and document them for future revisions.
Decision: Style guides will be applied to all content on landing pages. A generic template will be provided for landing pages. Content review and detailed design review will occur after beta.
Deodato presents feedback received between July and December on the beta search tabs. Overall, the team received a total of 90 responses via survey and email. The top four recommendations for improving the search tabs were: add more book search options (30%), set books as the default tab (16%), add a separate tab for media (9%), and replace Searchlight as the target of the articles tab (9%). A complete report of the data is available on the web board’s Sakai site under Resources > Refresh feedback. The team also reviewed recommendations from LCC which predominantly mirrored the top three concerns. Agnew suggests that these assumptions be validated before making drastic changes. Deodato notes that feedback is but one aspect of the team's ongoing assessment. The team is also looking at usage statistics, usability test results, and practices of peer institutions. Based on these sources of data, the team continues to make adjustments to improve the search tabs. Mullen says that huge numbers of people (over 114,000 since the start of the semester) are using the search tabs. Adds that a lot of feedback is probably from librarians and not the target audience, which are students. J Gardner says that the team is trying to identify ways to channel users towards using more options in their searches. McDonald notes that the search team’s input is needed in designing the small search tabs that will be located in the banner of the sub pages. It is important to determine which links will be featured in the small tabs, given the paucity of space.
Decision: A report and findings based on changes will be ready for a Redesign Open House in January.
Purger says that in light of the pace of preparations for beta, regular web board meetings will resume after the beta release. J.Gardner asks when the beta release will occur and when the Open House will be held. Purger says that Open House will correspond to when a significant portion of the beta is ready, including mega menus, home page, and several landing pages. Just reminds the group that the next Cabinet meeting is on Jan 15th. Open House will be for internal RUL community only.
Decision: J. Gardner and Purger will schedule Open House around Cabinet and USC meetings in January 2013. Just agrees that an update to Cabinet as to the final timeline for the Open House will suffice.
Meeting was concluded at 3:30 pm.