Web Advisory Committee Meeting (WAC)

Dana Porter Library 428, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 10:30

Attendees:

Paxman, Allan Bell, Kelley Teahen, Eva Grabinski, Mary Lynn Benninger, Penny Pudifin, Tammy Marcinko, Paul Snyder (chair), Pat Lafranier, Geoff McBoyle, Terry Stewart, Guillermo Fuentes, Marlon Griffith, Andrew Smith, Gary Ridley, Isaac Morland, Donald Duff-McCracken, MaryJane Jennings, Karen Jack, Sarah Forgrave, Jason Greatrex (minutes).

Regrets:

Sean Van Koughnett, Brenda MacDonald, Jaymis Goertz, Cu Truong.

1. Opening discussion

  1. Agenda proposed – passed.
  2. Approval of minutes of past meeting. Allan Bell requested the following change be made to the minutes: (rewrite sentence change). Minutes approved with Allan's revisions.
  3. Recommendation that the committee be advisory to University Committee on Information Systems and Technology and Web Steering - approved by Alan George.

2. General discussion of proposed categorization of topics

Proposed topic areas:

  1. Investigation into Requirements
  2. Refreshing the Definition of the Common Look and Feel (CLF)
  3. Enhancing our implementation of the CLF
  4. Other campus-wide issues

General comments on proposed topic areas

  1. With regard to the proposed "Investigation into Requirements", perhaps the word "research" would be a better term to use than requirements. The word requirements has a technical connotation.
  2. Need to view all website projects via a holistic approach that considers technology, usability, and communications (to reach target audiences).
  3. A list of items echoed by numerous people about our primary goals:
    • Audiences - collaborative/collective research required to define targeted groups; recognition that this includes both internal and external users;
    • Message - what message(s) are we trying to communicate to our audience?
    • Content - the information that we want to make available to the audience
    • Technology - must support the goals of the university and must include things such as collaboration tools, administrative applications, document and content management systems
    • Usability - need to address usability and accessibility issues
    • Purpose - how are we using the Web and what is its purpose?
    • Communication - need to provide principles, standards to effectively deliver content, message and its presentation to a targeted audience.
  4. Although many of these objectives overlap and are closely tied together; can these activities be separated? Can investigation proceed in parallel or should we wait until the first step is made? The group resonated that our audience base needs to be evaluated and understood when developing and enhancing University websites.
  5. Some groups (e.g. Student Services) want a tailored entry to their web space. Our conversations about everything from navigation to content and design need to keep in mind the fact that audiences in general and the on-campus constituencies, want more segmented, personalized and tailored approaches to our webspace.
  6. In addition to "standard" html pages, the Web is being used as a delivery vehicle for online documents and for dynamic applications (e.g. Quest). Does the CLF standard apply to these two types of applications?

Comments related to Research of our Target Audience

  1. From a marketing perspective, there is a need to establish best practice research methods. The objective would be to collectively investigate and develop a research base to better understand and then target our audience base.
  2. Who will do the research and where will it come from?
  3. Some segmental research has already occurred (CPA- University’s Home Page, Library – user and log analysis, and a Campus Usability Project). Campus collaboration is required.

Comments related to the CLF

  1. Our university has a varied audience and how do we address these different audiences? Need to allow some flexibility to have each area address its own specific audience.
  2. Although we have a varied, cross-over audience creating multiple CLF’s would add confusion to our audience. The current CLFs consistency decreases such confusion.
  3. Both the UK and Canadian government websites have Web Toolkits. These toolboxes encompass a broad spectrum of useful web principles: writing styles, guidelines, and architecture. An option would be to adopt these for our own use.
  4. What is wrong with the current CLF? A number of concerns expressed:
    • Branding – our current web design has common symbols (University of Waterloo crest, font) but the university does not have an agreed-upon "brand" as expressed in a statement or platform. What do we want to express about the University of Waterloo in our communications? It is hoped that the new VP External Relations will address this need and define campus communications branding as a whole, which will include web communications.
    • Navigation -navigational requirements need to be re-addressed. A wide variety of navigation techniques are being used across campus leading to confusion.
    • Definition - What is the CLF? The CLF requires more clarification to achieve campus wide consistency. Many Web site administrators are unsure of what should be implemented.
    • Governance - Additional comments were made concerning certain campus websites deviating from the university CLF; some university websites do not mention the University of Waterloo, or even display the University of Waterloo title.
  5. The CLF guidelines were implemented and largely accepted because they met the available needs at the time. These guidelines are aimed at top-tier websites that require consistency and control, and not written for individual websites.
  6. We could achieve the two goals of consistency and content reusability if our implementation of the CLF was based on a Content Management System.
  7. The CLF must address separation of content from presentation via available web technologies (e.g. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)); this eases updates if the CLF changes.
  8. Perhaps an emphasis should be made not only for the CLF technical skills but include usability and accessibility reasons behind the CLF.
  9. Additional CLF changes should be fluid and seamless, independent of technological tools.
  10. The technology that our audience is using has changed since the definition of the CLF; changes include larger, higher-resolution displays and the smaller displays of mobile devices.

3. Strategies for moving forward

Audience Research Sub-Group

Chaired by Allan Bell, members include: Kelley Teahen ... contact Allan if you would like to participate. (Post meeting addition, Sarah Forgrave).

Goal (with some post-meeting refinements), is to define what our diverse user groups want from our web presences as a first step to developing a strategy and decision making process. The CLF needs to be flexible enough to allow each of us to reach our audiences most effectively given our own goals and site objectives.

The group will begin by identifying usability and user research and the use of web analytics on campus to lead to some best practices for audience research methods.

Navigational Issues Sub-Group

Chaired by Terry Stewart (post meeting change), members include: Sarah Forgrave, Mary Lynn Benninger, .... Contact Terry if you would like to participate.

Goal is to:

  1. review the navigation description in the current CLF documentation
  2. identify areas in which the description needs to be enhanced
  3. develop a set of recommendations for enhancements in the CLF navigation

CLF Definition Sub-Group

Chaired by Pat Lafranier, members include the Webops Team. Contact Pat if you would like to participate.

Goal is to identify areas in which the CLF is unclear and provide a set of recommendations for areas that should be covered by the CLF.

New Section – “Display Favorite Website of the Week”

Submissions are encouraged and should include an explanation behind the reason for your selection. Update twiki or send suggestions to Paul.