In a recent series of meetings here at the ICFL, the staff was informed of the plan to scrap the previous content in the old site and to start over (think of a Phoenix rising from the ashes). However, since that time it seems like concession after concession has been made and that plan was doused with a fire extinguisher filled with initial reaction FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) leaving us with one damp bird. Well now that the shock has had time to wear off, we need to move beyond this and refocus our attention on what we are trying to accomplish here: a user-friendly site that is easy to use and will help the Commission better serve our customers by modeling best practices and behaviors.
Identifying and presenting content that is still fresh, current, and most importantly, relevant, is no small feat. We currently have 1500 nodes with over 8,000 hyperlinks. With this amount of content, it is no wonder that I hear people complain about not being able to find what they are looking for. I can’t speak for the rest of the Commission, but I for one have no idea what half the programs we do are really about and rely heavily upon my coworkers and their levels of expertise in each area to fill in the gaps. However, we are currently prone to prose and need to trim off some of the excess.
But why? I come from a business background and one school of thought is that inventory hides problems. Applying that to a website means that too many pages hides whether or not we are actually serving our customers well. An assumption is made that since the information is on the site somewhere, somebody can find it. However, we have already established that people are frustrated with the current state of the site, have a hard time locating the items they want, and are bombarded with information when trying to narrow down their search. It’s a classic Catch-22 situation: we know it’s burdened with content, but nobody wants to get rid of anything!
Solution: We need to better manage our product, the flow of information, and get it into the hands of the end user in the most efficient way possible. By applying a Just in Time (JIT) strategy to the website, we can still provide the level of service that our customers are used to, but at the same time weed out the unnecessary bits. One of the biggest steps in this process is to reduce the amount of content on our site. Since we do not have an elegant, easy to use way to track the users usage (see the State of Idaho’s Privacy Policy), we have to turn to an alternative mean such as this.
By starting afresh, this will be our opportunity to really find out what people are looking to get from using our site. Also, by having less content at launch, it will show us where the problem areas are at (kind of like a river’s flow, when it is low, you have a better opportunity to spot the sharp, jagged rocks sticking out). At first, there will be bumps and bruises, but we are tough, resilient, adaptive, and smart enough to come up with solutions. As a bonus, our new site will no longer be controlled by information gatekeepers, but rather, by you the user (both internal and external). If you find a trouble spot, fix it. If you see something that is outdated, update it. If a tasty tidbit of news comes up, blog it. Don’t get so wrapped up in the visual presentation of the content, just get it out there and as a group we can zero in on our goal.
Filed under: Recent News
c3library
anne1
mchlsamuelson
idahocat
ejhildreth
cfowles
m3mo
justinac
Memo
stevepoppino
trusteejohn
thawleyhouse
lburnett
Dylan Baker
infomaven4u
schase
jnonfiction
outsideagit8r
catalogeek
melanes
wedothatinidaho
funabiki
maryschitchat
librarynewsjoan
liesls
08corvette
smalltownlibrary
Having some pretty intense content on there (and on which I’ve spent some time trying to organize in a logical fashion) - I wouldn’t have a problem with this IF the content can be accessed another way.
For example, if I have something about e-rate that has content that I want to cite, will I be able to say - go to such and such a url for more information?
Well-state Eric, change is always difficult — especially when there appears to be lots of “unknowns”.
We all need to identify our concerns and post them so that they can be addressed in some form or another.
Your words “We need to better manage our product, the flow of information, and get it into the hands of the end user in the most efficient way possible.”
A resounding YES!
I for one am looking forward to having a place where I can share information with the entire library community without having to clutter someone’s email.
Weight loss …. is never easy!
I’m with you. It’s a good opportunity to do a BIG weed. I need to check with Peggy, but I’d like to cut about 80 - 90 percent of our “static documents,” old newsletter archives, handouts, etc.
I’m mentally ready to start the process now and am trying to figure out a good way to do this. But the main point is I hear you!
I don’t dispute the reality that much of the content, specifically prose, needs to be cut. I think I just felt a little blind-sided by the timeline.
There are very few people who have been involved in this plan from the beginning, so to suddenly learn here are the proposed changes and here is our very ambitious timeline was a bit of a shock. Doing things quickly is good. But understand that some stakeholders have had a lot more time to adapt to the idea than others. For or me, I need a bit to consider an idea to see how it is going to become a part of my workflow. It’s not saying it’s NOT going to be part of the workflow, but there are some other priorities going on in the next few months, I just needed a bit of time to figure out how some of that is going to be reprioritized to meet the demands of the timeline.
It’s fine to say that not everything has to be “ready” at the unveiling, but due to the timing of it and the fact that it puts me right in the middle of a peak time with a project where I’ll be pointing libraries to the online content about it, I need to figure out how the necessary information will be available to them.
I just need to step back to put the idea on, walk around with it a little bit, and see how it’s going to fit.
First let me say, I do believe the site could use some updating, it is difficult to find the information I am looking for at times.
However, that said, think about the following….
For example, if I were filling out an erate form, and I happened to be a few months later than everyone else, and I still have the original email from Jan (cause I never delete any email) is the information still going to be there?
If not how long is the info going to stay on the site?
What about statistics? It is WAY easier for me to access the statistics for past years on the web than try find the data in the recesses of the library.
Does this also mean I am going to have to start keeping paper copies of the ICFL newsletters as well as other documents that I could previously find on the site?
How about the Family Reading Week material? Since Family Reading Week is in November, does this mean that December through September the information on Family Reading Week isn’t going to be on the site? (Could be an issue if we are lobbying the legislature in January for a program like Read to Me, and the info isn’t on the site where I say it last summer.)
Perhaps a searchable archive would help, then I could choose to search the archives, which might be a seperate tab, and then the rest of the site could use the JIT philosophy.
Just some random thoughts that may or may not be helpful.
Finally, Thanks to ICFL staff for all the help they give the library community
This issue deserves a lot of thought. We’re librarians - we know that there are lots of ways to organize knowledge. Our whole professional lives are built around making information accessible. To label the reaction or discussion FUD isn’t really very helpful, IMO.
I’m concerned about substituting style for substance. I really don’t care so much that people know what my favorite movies are, what music I like, my hobbies, what kind of (state) car I drive, or any other personal information that might ‘brand’ me.
What I do care about is having the content available when it’s needed (which may be all year, depending on the subject) at least in a searchable and/or archived format.
Wow! What a robust discussion. Here are some of my observations:
. I don’t think branding staff is about our personal lives as much as it is about what we do for Idaho libraries in our professional lives. I I know most of our librarians are fiercly dedicated to their consultants–how cool would it be to have a conversation like this about grassroots support (okay, I’m biased)? Point in fact, buriedinbooks and idahocat have offered a great perspective!
. The timeline is ambitious, but in our own vancaular, “no babies will die” if we don’t adhere to the schedule. Eric’s suggestion that we take this time (okay, I know there is never enough of it) to cull our content will lead to much more relevant and friendlier web presense.
.Here’s a prediction (and it’s writing!) how the library community (and us) will use our website next year (take heart buriedinbooks):
1. Most searching will take place using the cloud tags and key words. The result will match what the user is looking for, e.g., 2007 public library statistics will take you to the statistics landing page.
2. Content on our landing pages won’t be so very different then what we a putting under the various pages now–LiLI stuff will still be there with bulleted links so people can drill down to their saturation point.
3. Conversations like this will take place on the various landing pages AND the most current blog will be featured on our front website, giving greater opportunity for people to join.
I’m grateful for all the thoughtful conversation here and have been reading everyone’s thoughts and taking all concerns into account in my thinking and work on the new site.
I haven’t posted sooner as I’ve been focused on building the site, and am hoping to have something to show folks before long. My thinking is that the conversation will likely become more focused and ends-driven, once folks can see what we’re talking about.
So, I’m focusing on building the “thing” in question. And because it’s not set in stone - nothing about a web site ever is, though certain fundamental decisions do affect one’s options down the line - we can use it as a point of conversation.
I’m also putting together a plan for migrating essential content from the old site to the new.
Anyone with concerns, I hope you will contact me - phone, personal email, or stop by in person, to discuss.
Michael Samuelson