| TSWeb Technical Team Minutes, Oct. 4, 2005 Present: Michal Jacyna, Sally Lockwood, Nathan Rupp (chair), Nancy Solla In looking at Michal and Nate’s mock-ups of a unit and motive design, we considered a number of questions: 1. Why does the current TS Web site have a site map and A to Z index in addition to a search box? It was decided that Nate would follow up on this by asking Jim LeBlanc, Lois Purcell, or Margaret Nichols, who were on the planning committee for TS Web. 2. Should we retain the "quick links" if most of the information there will fit into a "motive" design structure? What about Karen’s new initiatives, like Tech Services Integration? Could those have a "permanent" place on the What’s New list? 3. Do we want to continue to have a feedback link? Should we use a feedback link to gather information that could help us with the new design? 4. Should we put together a short survey to help us with the new design? Such a survey could ask people for their favorite TS book marks, what they like about the current site, what they do not like about the current site, what is missing from the current site, and can they navigate throughout the site ok. 5. We decided that we probably do not want the "rainbow color scheme" for our main page links as we do on the current site. Procedure Group Update Recent activities The group spent its last meeting copyediting the procedures; they are now seventy percent done with this task. The group has been discussing what kind of front matter (metadata) to include for the procedures—who drafted each procedure, what unit was responsible, etc. Next actions The group plans to create codes for each unit to enable searching for procedures by the unit that created them. The group is considering how best to separate the material in the Voyager manual into non-procedure documents and procedure documents Until the redesign of LTS Web is complete, Nancy will continue to update the metadata procedures where they currently live on the CTS site. Design Discussion The design group began its task by reviewing the content of the TS web and CTS web sites as well as other folders containing TS material but not accessible to the outside world. It identified a number of different categories of information that a LTS web site could include: tools (macro express, Voyager tables, calendar, currency conversion); resources (outside links: MARC tagging, formats); project list; initiatives (ERM, ITSO); services (ITSO, MARC record sets, metadata services); training (in-house, NYLINK, CIT); procedures (including administrative policies and procedures); about us/who we are (contacts, committees, structural information). Next, it considered the audiences of the LTS web site: TS non-TS LTS non-TS CUL (selectors) Non-Cornell TS groups CU staff and faculty TS vendors (OCLC, Endeavor) non CU staff and faculty Nate then led a discussion about what groups would be interested in what information. The group concluded that most groups would be interested in most of the categories we outlined. The categories that weren’t of interest to most groups were most important to the main audience (LTS); these included the Voyager manual. It was decided that all categories discussed should be represented on the home page. The group then discussed how the top level of the site should be organized, whether by function, structurally, organizationally, or unit (we decided to call this the "unit" organization) or by motive or reason for coming to the site (we decided to call this the "motive" organization). One of the problems with organizing the site by unit is that we would have to redesign the site every time there is a reorganization in LTS. In addition, it can be difficult to determine under which unit a certain piece of information might live. Nate adjourned the meeting by asking those present to consider each of these two methods of organizing the site. |