| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Notes from BSC Virtual Meeting 05-01-2019

Page history last edited by Ann Myers 4 years, 10 months ago

Regarding the new submission form:

 

  • There was one objection to the “previous citation form” field since new proposals would not have a previous citation form (but might have other forms they are commonly known by).
    • Do we want to rename this field? What would we call it? Also known as?

Note: if we rename the field, I am unclear if it would have to be renamed for the entire site. If it would, does that change how we feel about renaming it in the submission form?

(i.e. older entries in the database would also say “Also known as” or whatever language we settle on, instead of “Previous citation form”)

KSM: Is relabeling it in this way a possibility: "Previous or variant citation form". I assume that would be the label in the submission form, the WordPress dashboard, and the public site?

     JS: I like this suggestion.

     VMB: I really like KSM's wording.

AM: Agreed! I will propose to Kelli.

 

  • There was also a suggestion that we change the introductory language on the submission form to remove suggestion that filling in non-required fields is encouraged – one person felt that otherwise the form is too intimidating.
    • Currently the introductory language reads: Fields marked with an asterisk are required; the rest are optional but encouraged.

          The suggested change is: Fields marked with an asterisk are required.

          Do we want to make this change?

KSM: I'm fine with making the change. It's possible, once folks are used to the longer form, that we can reinsert "but encouraged."

JCS: I concur.

VMB: The change is fine with me. Though I'm a little surprised that the original is intimidating.

AMG: Agreed. I think people understand that asterisk means required, and the rest is optional, but helpful if included.

AM: Thanks. I'll propose this change.

 

  • An informal poll was unanimously in favor of moving forward with implementing the new form. This means we have the following tasks; please let me know if you can help with any of them!
    • Finalize form language (see above) [Ann]
    • Arrange roll out date with Kelli [Ann]
    • Announce on DCRM-L [Ann]
    • Establish new workflow for new submissions
      • Should we still list things on the wiki?

KSM: I was wondering this myself. The proposals will go directly into the dashboard, correct? Do they go into the "Pending" file? I don't see a way of putting one's name next to a page's title to claim it (you have to open a page, then you see "last edited by xxx, date"). 

JCS: Perhaps we could have a more streamlined list on the wiki, e.g. just the proposed citation and the name of the proposer?

VMB: This question comes because of the extra work involved, I assume? And was the original purpose to keep track so no proposals slipped through the cracks?

AM: Yes, I'm hoping to avoid unnecessary extra work, but I like JCS's suggestion to have more streamlined text on the wiki. It seems useful to me to have some mechanism of keeping track so no proposals slip through the cracks, and it's clear who is supposed to be working on what.

    • Revise internal documentation for workflow/editing [KSM: I can take this on]
    • Revise ongoing task list [KSM: I can take this on]

 

Regarding the issues with WordPress:

 

  • We need to do some more fact finding. Ann will be contacting Kelli and the Web Team for more information including: (Update 5/24/19: discussions with the Web Team are ongoing about how best to proceed. Good news is none of this sounds super urgent.)
    • How urgently do we need to redevelop the site?
      • How stable is it currently?
      • What are the security implications of the deprecated plugins?
    • What would the actual effort be?
      • Migrating data to new plugins? Or really redeveloping the site?
    • What would the cost implications be?
      • It was suggested that there might be some ALA slush funds to help depending on the amounts involved
  • The new Experts Directory relies on the same design/architecture as the SCF site, so we’ll be working with them in these initial discussions
  • There will be a task force charged post-ALA Annual with investigating how well SCF principles support linked data
    • We should keep linked data needs in mind if we move towards a major site redesign
    • The task force would also be responsible for determining what would be required from our site to support linked data
      • (Therefore we may want to be looking for interim solutions to keep things running until big picture decisions can be made)

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.