Dana Porter Library 428, Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 3:00-4:30 pm
Attendees:
Allan Bell, Eva Grabinski, Geoff McBoyle, Guillermo Fuentes, Karen Jack, Kelley Teahen, Kevin Paxman, Marlon Griffith, Megan McDermott, Michelle Douglas-Mills, Pat Lafranier, Penny Pudifin, Sarah Forgrave, Sean Van Koughnett, Tammy Marcinko, Terry Stewart, Paul Snyder
Regrets:
Brenda MacDonald, Cu Truong, Donald Duff-McCracken, Gary Ridley, Isaac Morland, Jaymis Goertz, Andrew Smith, MaryJane Jennings, Mary Lynn Benninger
Guests:
Chris Gray
1. Chair's opening remarks
- Agenda for the day to focus on the three subgroup reports: Common Look and Feel (CLF), Navigation and Content Management
- Objective will be to clarify and understand the reports
- Final report on Audience Research to be discussed next Thursday along with a discussion of the recommendations of the reports.
2. CLF definition report - Pat Lafranier
* Objective was to identify where the CLF was unclear and provide a set of recommendations * Committee completed a very thorough assessment of the CLF, identifying what the current standard is, some observations on compliance to the standard, a set of recommendations to current problems with the current standard and consideration for future versions of the CLF. * General observation that while there was a high degree of compliance with the CLF, there were also a significant number of sites that deviated from the CLF. * A lack of clarity in the CLF definition was a possible cause of the deviation. * In addition, where the CLF did not provide a solution, people invented their own. * Recommendation that the CLF documentation should be clarified, the template "tweaked" to the recommended standard and that the "future considerations" be made available to the committee developing a new template.
Comments * The Library is introducing a new search facility that support multisite searches using Google.
* New standardized unit logos are being developed.
3. Questions for discussion
1. How do we enforce the CLF? Who approves a Web site?
4. Navigation report
- Terry Stewart * Objective was to review the CLF navigation as described and as implemented, to review navigation practices of other institutions and make recommends on CLF navigation. * General observation that CLF documentation was not comprehensive which may have contributed to a variety of navigation techniques. In addition, the CLF did not provide solutions to many navigation problems, resulting in a variety of innovative solutions. * A set of 14 recommendations were presented, ranging from changes that could be done now (e.g. review of navigation terminology) to those that should be considered with a major revision to the CLF (e.g. creation of a horizontal top menu consistent across all Waterloo web sites).
Questions for discussion
- What is our mandate? Are we charged with a major overhaul of the CLF or should we focus on tweaking the CLF?
- How do we encourage buying to the CLF; how do we enforce it? 1. Is a Content Management System in our future? Should we consolidate the large number of Web servers?
Content management - Sean Van Koughnett
* Objective was to investigate web content management relating to the issues of content, training, and governance. * General observation that content was being maintained in an accurate and timely fashion but that time was the most significant impediment to achieving this. * Content management was very decentralized, typically by people responsible for the information. * Satisfaction with the tools and training available was generally positive however committee observed that the use of simpler tools (e.g. Contribute rather that Dreamweaver) would be beneficial. * Committee recommended that a more thorough assessment be completed of Content Management Systems be completed.
Comments * A number of content management systems are already being used on campus: a specialized application used to maintain the Grad and UGrad calendars, innovative use of the blogging software Wordpress in Engineering and the Drupal software in Arts.
University of Waterloo