Minutes of August 7, 2012 Meeting

A Au, Deodato, Just, Gardner, Gwizdka, Koruth, Ling, McDonald, Mills, Purger, Mullen, Lotts, Sterback, Anderson.
Gwizdka, Lotts


  1. Finalizing the new design (Koruth)
  2. Next phase project timeline (Purger)
  3. First user comments on the Summer Refresh (Gardner)
  4. Miscellaneous

1. Finalizing the new design

A. Koruth presents the most recent design revision submitted by Roger Black Studio (hereafter: RBS). The RBS revision was modified to reflect the most recent recommendations made by the Web Board's Information Architecture (hereafter: IA) team. These recommendations include a 3-part navigation system that was presented to the Libraries community in a Town Hall meeting in September 2011. Conceptual drawings for this system are available at http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/demo/2011_design_01/# and http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/demo/2011_design_01/infoArch_homepage.pdf A document containing a composite design that incorporated navigational treatments and content changes into the revision from RBS was discussed for the remainder of the meeting. This document is available at https://sakai.rutgers.edu/access/content/group/816f9194-ab96-4bf6-8397- 1b0c0b5792de/Visual%20Design/WB20120807_DesignDiscussion.pdf

B. Design feedback with action items:

Information Architecture


i) A-nav terminology:

Purger brings up the question of whether "Find" is the right label for the tab in the A-nav (primary navigation). Discussion ensues about considering aligning with the rest of the terminology used in the A-nav.

Decision: Information Architecture team will review a variety of labels and make a final recommendation.

ii) Banner:

Mullen, Gardner mention that too much text in the banner section makes it seem too busy.


iii) B-nav/C-nav

Mills suggests that placing search tabs in the C-nav might not be intuitive, since none of the labels on the C- nav indicated that this would be available. Discussion continues over whether AAL link should be provided on the B-nav or accommodated in the C-nav as a quick link.


iv) Breadcrumbs/back-paths

Question is raised as to whether breadcrumb trails need to be adopted and if so, to what depth.



v) AAL (Ask A Librarian) Block

Discussion about making live chat available via a slide in tab that is visible whenever chat is available. The tab would hang from the right edge of the webpage/document window.


The AAL block needs to be above the fold. Its aspects needs consent from USC on aspects of prominence

vi) "The place to go when you need to know!"

vii) Alert message

viii) Photos/Pictures/Images


ix) Overall design:

Gardner says that the design seemed text-heavy and "boxy" compared to the first design provided by RBS. Koruth responds that this "boxiness" can be addressed by taking content out of boxes and simply making lists of links with a title, for sections such as the AAL block and the "Information For" block. Also, current revision was a response to earlier comments about "boxiness".

x) Banner:

Since the banner projects the face of the libraries, it needs to be distinctive, open and serious. Koruth observes in that light, that the banner on the RBS revision has an "open and inviting" feel about it. (Unlike the more commonly seen Rutgers banners which usually have a block of color, this banner color combination is reversed. It has a white background on which sits the red seal), and is a step in the right direction. Melissa Just concurs that banner feels light & airy (praise)


2. Next phase project timeline

  1. Purger calls on IA team to begin implementing changes to the design based on the days' discussion.
  2. Purger asks help Team to begin working on information design for RUL Help.
  3. Purger mentions that as part of RUL redesign, all satellite sites will be brought to the same platform.
  4. Purger calls on governance document team to complete and deliver final draft of governance document.
  5. Open House plans: WB will present the results of final redesign decisions.
  6. Next steps include implementation of design changes, creating design templates for sub pages, host an Open House for RUL community, set up access management system for the website, train content managers, migrate/build content, and prepare for release (list of project activities included).
  7. Gardner discusses possibility of usability study between the final approval of the design and its release. Decision is deferred.

3. Refresh Comments:

  1. Gardner points out a common response -- the left bar is hard to read.
    Koruth says this has been addressed. The diagonal background has been lightened and the font size of the text has been increased.
  2. Gardner points out several Searchlight complaints.
    Decision: Deodato reports that DIG is currently in the process of reconfiguring the product with the goal of improving performance. He notes that many subject categories currently contain irrelevant and/or inappropriate databases impacting the quality of results. Furthermore, the system has not been calibrated (via the assignment of database tiers) for optimal search speed and relevancy. Accordingly, DIG has invited selectors to review database assignments in their subject area(s) and submit any recommended changes via an online form. The deadline for submitting changes is August 8th. Only nine selectors have responded. DIG will assume responsibility for making configuration decisions for any remaining subject areas. DIG hopes to complete the reconfiguration by next week.
    Judging by the submissions and questions received thus far, it seems that many librarians may be unclear about the role and functionality of Searchlight (or federated search in general). Deodato proposes offering a "refresher" workshop to provide an overview of the product and respond to librarian concerns. The workshop will be held sometime in September after Deodato's return.
  3. Remaining feedback was read aloud to WB. While searching using the new interface, users were happy to be able to find journals with ease. There have been several positive comments on the overall design of the refresh.
  4. Au asks for a "Subject Begins with" search option. Katie Anderson asks if Advanced Search can be implemented into the tabs such that only Newark or Camden holdings can be revealed.
  5. The Search Team will wait until students return to receive more user comments and does not plan to make any changes before the end of September.

4. Miscellaneous

Date for subsequent WB meetings to follow.

The meeting was concluded at 12:30 pm.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/web_board/minutes/web_board_12_08_07.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries