Response to JoCoWeb World Doc
Hi all,
Erica, this document is HUGE! Very thorough. Here a couple thoughts. . . sorry if they are covered in the doc and I missed them. . .
Who is the document intended for? I know you said it would go to Ad Council, but is it Web Content's working document or is intended for others?
If for others, it seems huge and I would look for ways to summarize, especially in the history area.
If it is your working document, there are some gaps in the history, or at least names left out.
I have a question about the names being included. . . .Is it necessary? Again, goes to the audience.
Also, some things about the partnership sites I would like to see addressed or at least not overlooked. . .
JoCoElders -- I think the big question is what the other agencies will want to do, particularly HSA -- also no reference of new name discussed and that whole conversation with Positive Aging. I also had a question about a staff person being appointed? Is that reference, Outreach or Web you are referring to?
JoCoFamily - I want to make sure the original content is not lost with JoCoFamily. I still think there are people who refer to that site for family crisis situations. also, Alice Stewart is the original brains behind that and the grant. should she be included in the history if you are including names?
JoCoHealth - Again to the history, Reference was the major force behind that project originally. How far back are you taking that history? This is one area I thought was long and could be summarized better. Again, depends on your audience and purpose.
Finally, what role will reference play in developing content? I see Dave mentioned for Business but that is about it. I would say they need to be more prominent!
thanks
Jennifer
Erica, this document is HUGE! Very thorough. Here a couple thoughts. . . sorry if they are covered in the doc and I missed them. . .
Who is the document intended for? I know you said it would go to Ad Council, but is it Web Content's working document or is intended for others?
If for others, it seems huge and I would look for ways to summarize, especially in the history area.
If it is your working document, there are some gaps in the history, or at least names left out.
I have a question about the names being included. . . .Is it necessary? Again, goes to the audience.
Also, some things about the partnership sites I would like to see addressed or at least not overlooked. . .
JoCoElders -- I think the big question is what the other agencies will want to do, particularly HSA -- also no reference of new name discussed and that whole conversation with Positive Aging. I also had a question about a staff person being appointed? Is that reference, Outreach or Web you are referring to?
JoCoFamily - I want to make sure the original content is not lost with JoCoFamily. I still think there are people who refer to that site for family crisis situations. also, Alice Stewart is the original brains behind that and the grant. should she be included in the history if you are including names?
JoCoHealth - Again to the history, Reference was the major force behind that project originally. How far back are you taking that history? This is one area I thought was long and could be summarized better. Again, depends on your audience and purpose.
Finally, what role will reference play in developing content? I see Dave mentioned for Business but that is about it. I would say they need to be more prominent!
thanks
Jennifer
posted by Anonymous at 11:23 AM
1 Comments:
Woo hoo!!!!!!!
Jen totally wins the JoCoWebWorld planning super star award for actually reading the plan!
Great comments--thanks so much! As a quick response (because I'm sitting in a tech planning meeting right now, so I should probably pay attention):
1. Yes...I'll write an executive summary for Ad Council and others (not everyone is as wonderful and dedicated as you and will actually read this).
2. It is somewhat of a working doc--but one that starts as the old DCIC plan left off. So, history prior to 2002 I didn't include, because the DCIC covered that.
3. I'll read through the history again, though...I'm not sure what I think about with names. I kinda like the idea of stripping them all out so that we don't leave anyone out. (Can i say that I hated writing the history...sometimes it was too broad...sometimes it was too specific....i got sick of it...can you tell?)
4. I didn't go into talking about how reference or any other departments would be involved in content development--I see it as the "it takes a village" section (I think that's a direct quote from Whitney) that all library staff are encouraged and involved in content development. But, I'm open to making that more specific.
Other thoughts?
20 points to Ms. Mahnken for actually reading the plan.
40 points to Ms. Mahnken for comments and making great suggestions.
Whoever has the most point at the end wins the house cup. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home