Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"
(Responded to Bryan's comment)
(→New Talk section: new section)
|Line 44:||Line 44:|
Revision as of 14:41, 26 May 2011
Let's keep the layout consistent and simple on this page. Title of section and a short paragraph should be sufficient.--Antonioli, Joseph A 09:48, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Logo for LIS wiki
It was fine when it was just EdTech. What should it be now?--Antonioli, Joseph A 14:01, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Regardless of the logo, it should no longer say "EdTech", sin ce that's only a section of the wiki now. The Wiki is LIS, so the graphic, below "1800" should say "LIS". It's the most prominent indicator of where you are as a user/visitor to the wiki.--Carson, Bryan P. 14:12, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Re-using Key Surveys
I've been trying to get a survey to people who are editing and revising it and therefore need to see it several times. They got it the first time, but it wasn't re-sent after that because "An email has been sent earlier and survey has been completed". Turns out you have to set an option when creating the survey to allow multiple responses from the same computer (which for most survey purposes is probably not a good idea, so I checked Don't Allow). You have to dig through Key Survey's Help to find this info; the implications aren't explained where you actually set the option. Would it be possible to put some kind of note on our Key Survey page to warn users?
Topher Hunt: Testing a condensed format
I've just tested out a more condensed layout for this page. In this layout the convention is: Each section gets a bullet, not a section header (to minimize vertical space) and the link to each section is in bold to draw the eye to it, with descriptive text following it on the same line.
As far as ordering of links, alphabetization only works well if each section has a very clear-cut name that people will be looking for when they arrive at the main page. Given that I feel people here will browse by content more than title, I think it's appropriate to order pages by how wide the projected audience is. Please give feedback. If you think the new layout is dismal please give feedback on that too.
--Hunt, Christopher 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Condensed Format (Bryan Carson)
The LIS Wiki is growing in scope. There is increasingly resources here that, although they'll have access points from several other systems, should not be ruled "out of scope" in the user's mind simply by intro verbage on this page. In addtion, I am not sure the that condensing it will have lasting effect on the page's vertical space. What you will lose is the usability of the T.O.C. Additionally, I don't think the headings are accurate. There is "how-to" documentation under both sections. Also, the LIS Web Team's area is as much about policy as Collection Management's section. In short, I think the categories may do more harm than good.
On a related note, the resources under Collection Management would benefit from an unordered sublist (for usability sake).
--Carson, Bryan 10/20/09
Re: Condensed Format (Topher Hunt)
Thanks for the blunt feedback. I definitely think that with the restructuring that we're doing, we'll need to do a lot of reconsidering of how to ensure that people have access to all the areas here that they need - and I want to be open to that. I am similarly not attached to the 2 section groupings I chose; but I do feel that such groupings are better than an alphabetized but content-arbitrary list. Regardless of my preference, this is a discussion that is crucial to the restructuring of this wiki.
The contents of each category should similarly be flexible. The Helpdesk section could easily be split into "Computer troubleshooting" and "Helpdesk / LIS policy" and merged into appropriate other sections. I also know there's a lot of content under the Helpdesk section that, while not specifically inappropriate for public viewing, has no good reason for being here versus being on our internal wiki.
I do feel that vertically condensing the page structure will make it easier to get a quick overview of all the links available, more so than the long and drawn-out "1 header per section" format did. Whatever else we end up adding, I don't feel would make the page much longer than one page-view (or two page-views on a netbook). I also don't agree that vertical condensation decreases usability or ease-of-use... do you have experience with vertical designs that can support this?
Again thanks for the feedback. I think this discussion is important, and will contribute to us having a better and more cohesive sense of what we want the wiki to look like once the dust settles from restructuring.
New Talk section
This is a new section