Web Steering Committee Minutes
August 6, 2002

 

Attending:  Steve Butts, Jim Evans, Michael Thorp, Steve Blodgett, Robert Lowe,

                     Peter Gilbert

 

[IMPORTANT NOTE:  These minutes should be regarded as draft (no, not daft, draft.  Please send emendations to me for inclusion.]

 

The sole topic discussed was:  what are the issues that need to be resolved at the current point in our design process?  While it was realized that there are many design-related issues, most of the discussion revolved around those of design, since we feel that most of the “look” questions cannot be attended to until we have a clearer picture of how navigation will work.

 

1.            How far down in the site hierarchy will a generally consistant style of navigation go and what should be that style?

 

Subject to eagerly awaited input from Netcasters, we agreed generally that

a.       the five basic destinations of  Calendars, Directory, Search, Site Map and Home should appear at the top of each page at all levels.

b.      The nine standard topics (About Lawrence, Academics, etc.) should appear on the left on the home page and on the Level 1 page of each topic. [NOTE:  Admissions prefers their own list of topics rather than the “standard” ones to appear on the Level 1 page.  This inconsistency is at issue.] For lower levels, “standard” navigation should be located on the left and consist of links to that page’s sister pages, i.e., those pages within the topic at the same level.

c.       Other links can appear in the “main box” of  each page, either embedded within the text or in a dedicated location.  However, we should strive to arrive at a stylistic convention that will meet the disparate needs of each major topic (e.g., the Library, Admissions) while preserving a common graphical “look.”  For example, the Library would like a portal-looking page at Level 1, and Admissions would very much not like this look.  Can these two conceptions be reconciled?

 

2.      Do we provide for multi-level navigational elements on a single page?  (For example, using rollovers, expanding text or whatever, do we provide the user with the facility for seeing and being able to link directly to any one of several levels of the hierarchy?)  If so, to what level do we enable this and do we do so for all the topics?  What are the technical issues this raises?

 

3.      Netcasters has proposed two major entry points for levels below the home page, a set of “topical” links (the “nine”), and  six “for” links based on the presumed needs of the various clients who may visit the site.   Admissions wants just one entry point.

 

Issue:  if Admissions has no “for prospective students” link in the list of other “for” links, we have left out perhaps the largest constituency from the list, which looks funny.  If we keep the “for prospective students” tag and kill the Admissions topic, that looks funny too.  Do we want funny A, funny B or no funny?

 

 

There was general agreement that in any case since the graphical treatment is highly dependent upon the navigation scheme, we must see the site map promised us by Netcasters before we can tackle the issue of having a consistant look for the site.  The Chair will renew his efforts to obtain this.

 

 

Stephen Butts, Secretary Pro tem