Remaining Tasks as of Aug 15
| Category | Task | Description | Who | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standards | Review standards document | Review full document and note issues regarding readability/usability, consistency in tone and voice, need for more justification, need for directional info | All | In progress | |
| Standards | Review outline | Review standards outline for heading and section names and overall order | All | ||
| Standards | Submit to external reader | Colleague outside of group read standards and 1) note anything confusing 2) test instructions to make sure process works when creating and editing actual guides | Ideas for who might do this? | ||
| Standards | Finalize standards document | Finishing touches after group and external reviewer have completed review | How do we want to submit this with our report? As a document (it's current format) or should we go ahead and create the LibGuide? JS thinks LibGuides admins should review before we create Guide. | ||
| Review Process | Draft document of review process | Nancy | In progress | ||
| Review Process | Review and comment on review doc | All | In progress | ||
| Review Process | Create tool for request to author (google form) | ||||
| Review Process | Investigate and recommend tools to facilitate review process | Investigate and test publishing workflow feature in LibGuides to see if meets our needs to (can "groups" be set up so that HSL and Law could have their own workflow if needed?)
| |||
| Review process | Create/setup tool that author uses to submit guide for review | Could be through the LG system, google form, an email to the review team, etc., we just have to be clear about how this happens. | |||
| Review process | Create/setup tool for providing feedback on guide to author | Mechanism through which review team provides feedback. Could be a simple document like K-State's or form. | |||
| Implementation | Ideas
|
Design and content standards
...
- Read "service design" model for LibGuides LGServDesign.pdf
- Identify categories and structure of design and content standards
- Determine which group members will write standards for the different categories
- Create template(s) for guides
- Make decision about the role of LibGuides within our larger site ecosystem (what content goes into LibGuides vs Drupal, etc.)
- Share draft of template(s) with RIS and LibGuides Administrators group
- Agree on template and "Guide Page and Layout" standards
- Re-read and comment on standards document (note issues regarding readability/usability, consistency in tone and voice, need for more justification, need for directional info)
- Agree on and finalize publication checklist
- Finalize templates and Guide Page and Layout sections after group agrees
- Share draft of standards with RIS and LibGuides Administrators group?
- Choose tool for standards
...
- Formalized design and content standards for LibGuides
- Guide publication checklist
- Recommendation for delivery of standards to guide authors (e.g. a LibGuide, other internal staff tool, etc.)
- internal LibGuide or Gitbook? (discuss with web site group?)
- LibGuide was decided on at 8/9 meeting
Review process
Tasks
- Review needs specific to Temple Libraries (see below)
- Are there any other concerns or issues we should keep in mind?
- Consider how Rick's work on current best practices/audit might fit in (maybe related to plan for updating existing guides?)
- Outline process of review and approval with thought to our specific needs
- Investigate and test publishing workflow feature in LibGuides to see if meets our needs to (can "groups" be set up so that HSL and Law could have their own workflow if needed?)
- Determine to what extent the publishing workflow feature meets our needs
- If publishing workflow does not meet our needs, recommend other mechanism/technology for guide review and approval
- Determine the mechanism and policy for requesting to create a new guide or "pre-authoring"
- Create Google Form for request to author
- Create tool that author uses to submit guide for review
- Create tool for providing feedback on guide to author
- Make recommendation for composition and training of the review team (number of members, duration, etc.)
- Make recommendation for authoring a course guide (no need to 'request to author' and can publish without review, but must be reviewed within 24 hours)
...