May 7, 2008
Present:
Allan Bell, Michelle Douglas-Mills, Guillermo Fuentes, Eva Grabinski, Marlon Griffith, Pat Lafranier, Tammy Marcinko, Megan McDermott, Kevin Paxman, Gary Ridley, Kelley Teahen, Paul Snyder (chair), Terry Stewart, Sean Van Koughnett, Geoff McBoyle, Toby Day-Hamilton
Regrets:
David Bean, Mary Lynn Benninger, Donald Duff-McCracken, Sarah Forgrave, Jaymis Goertz, Karen Jack, Mary Jane Jennings, Brenda MacDonald, Isaac Morland, Penny Pudifin, Andrew Smith, Cu Truong
1. Opening remarks
* Approval of the agenda
* Approval of the minutes of our meeting held April 10th
* Welcome to new member: Tobi Day-Hamilton, Arts
2. Items under discussion
a) Privacy Statement Feedback from Reg Quinton that it needs more detail; it needs to give a more realistic description of what is being collected and how the date is being used. Also there needs to provide more detail relating to Google Analytics. Karen, Paul and Reg are working on the statement. Paul will put revised statement on the TWiki for review at next meeting.
b) Search Strategy (Megan) A sub-committee is being formed to look into this. Megan suggested that ideally, all web sites use the same search site. There is a lack of awareness on how the search works. Megan will book a meeting to organize the sub-committee and will advertise it to the group.
c) Identify Task Force (Kelly) The group is actively working on this review, activities include: * conducting interviews with a broad range of the target audience * attending branding workshops in May and June * developing some common themes * some preliminary results by the end of the summer and then starting the development of visual identity * a "first look" by the and of the fall and * Rollout and implementation is to be 2009.
3. Content management
a) Progress to-date The Content Management System (CMS) – Committee Report is linked to the twiki. Current plans are to: * Establish a set of content management principles and assess how well our current approach is meeting these * List the benefits and risks of implementing and not-implementing a CMS * Contact other Universities and Institutions that have implemented a CMS. Suggestion that we consider looking into a site (non-university if need be) that has implemented a CMS on a large scale, rather than for a sub-set of their web. Mentioned that Canheit 2007, there was a presentation on CMS that might be worth looking at.
4. Reviewing the recommendations of subgroups
a) Content Management * The CMS report was received positively and endorsed by University Committee on Information Systems and Technology (UCIST) * R1, R3 - could probably be deferred for now pending the results of the investigations into Content Management Systems. * R2 - Paul will produce a summary based on the survey data collected on content management practices on campus. * R4 - The development of a plan to make a recommendation to Web Steering about how to proceed with an investigation of Content Management Systems is well underway. * R5 - Paul will email Catharine Scott in regards to ensuring that job descriptions are properly updated to reflect Web responsibilities. Question - are we looking for a CMS for only groups large enough to benefit from using one? Response - No assumption that every group would be using the CMS.
b) Audience Research * R1 - For every page, the author needs to figure out the audience it should be aimed for (i.e. inside vs outside facing). * R2 - We may lack expertise and experience in audience research methodologies. Suggestion that a case needs to be made for getting a budget to look into this in more detail. * R3 - The Library is reviewing their web site and are developing a set of web page guidelines. Alan will make these available to the group once they are approved by the Library. * R4 - target audiences * Antonia Palmer has taught a course on this topic including the use of "personas". We could see if she could do this as another Web course. * The Library is collecting data to identify who is using their site and what tasks they are attempting to perform. * R5 - Usability testing etc * Is anyone doing user research on their web pages? The survey results may already have some information. Paul provide details of information collected in the survey. * The Library would like to do some usability testing on their new interface. * Do we have any lab testing facilities on campus? Yes, one is available in Arts. * Tobi to lead a group to develop approaches to audience research leading to Web redesign. * R6 - Google analytics * Alan volunteered to lead a group that will look into coordinating and sharing the Google Analytics data that is currently being collected. ---
5. Assessing our priorities
a) Short term, critical issues * Nothing really pending. * People are waiting on the University of Waterloo Identity branding before doing to many changes to their web sites. * It was noted that work on the search can go ahead without the need to wait for the Waterloo Identity branding to be resolved. * Analysis of the page traffic and use of the pages can also go ahead.
b) What else should we be doing to prepare for and inform decisions leading to a refresh in the design and implementation of the University of Waterloo Commong Look and Feel (CLF)? * Look at redesigns done at other Universities. * Consider communicating (better) with the campus community in regards to what this group is doing. Currently, the group (and it’s pages) are more or less “hidden” from view unless one knows to search for them. Over the summer, as time permits, members should start to look at the following topics/areas. * The work to be done has been identified, but not how or by who it is to be done. * What is the Web Advisory Group Role in this regard and where does it stop? It is a resource to the project? Takes marching order from the project.