UNIVERSITY WEBSITE IA & CONTENT
Overhauling and simplifying content for prospective students
Overview
The university website provides information to several distinct user groups:
current students, prospective students, alumni/donors, faculty, staff, and the public.
The site is also built into a CMS with distributed content editors across the university.
Process-wise, this works well, but content-wise, the result became an almost overwhelming amount of information accumulated on the website.
current students, prospective students, alumni/donors, faculty, staff, and the public.
The site is also built into a CMS with distributed content editors across the university.
Process-wise, this works well, but content-wise, the result became an almost overwhelming amount of information accumulated on the website.
Approach to Content Redesign
Content Inventory
Exporting a sitemap into a spreadsheet allowed us to identify content owners and audiences and see what URLs we had in place directing toward current content. This comes in handy again at the end to create URL redirects to avoid broken links later. An inventory allows us to:
· take stock of what's already written
· identify redundant content
First Step: Prioritizing Content
A full site map was exported to a spreadsheet, with the department responsible for the content identified and the content sections grouped and prioritized by audience and function.
It became apparent, in accordance with the strategic direction, that an area of the website needing immediate attention was the Admissions section. This section was a whopping 40 pages of content, presenting a serious challenge for prospective students trying to navigate the university application process.
It became apparent, in accordance with the strategic direction, that an area of the website needing immediate attention was the Admissions section. This section was a whopping 40 pages of content, presenting a serious challenge for prospective students trying to navigate the university application process.
Building a human connection
Engaging subject matter experts in the process
Engaging subject matter experts in the process
Engaging the Subject Matter Experts
Using the KJ technique to elicit ideas
1. Use sticky notes to ensure everyone's ideas are represented
2. Ask each individual to distribute 5 votes (stickers) on their top picks to include as content on the website
3. allow time for review, then conduct one more round of voting
By this time, it has become obvious which content items should be included on the website based on votes and feedback at the end. The KJ process encourages group buy-in and consensus, while brainstorming through all the options.
References:
What is the KJ technique all about?
The KJ-Technique: A Group Process for Establishing Priorities
Card Sorting
The highest-ranking items from the KJ exercise moved on to the card sorting round
Card Sorting Process
Using OptimalSort, the card sorting tool from Optimal Workshop, allowed me to set up a card for each content item from the KJ exercise.
From here, I could send out a test to different groups of people to allow them to create content groups and arrange the content in ways that made sense to them.
I segregated the participants in this round into Public and Staff groups to see if there was a difference in the language that each group would use. So often staff become familiar with language that is common inside the organization, but holds less meaning to those outside.
Tree testing
Building (and testing!) the current and proposed user journey
Once the initial sorting of information is complete, enough to form groups, I move to tree testing to confirm or challenge any assumptions made in the sorting exercise.
By asking users directed questions and analyzing the path they take to find the information, patterns start to appear around meaningful groupings and hierarchy of information.
By asking users directed questions and analyzing the path they take to find the information, patterns start to appear around meaningful groupings and hierarchy of information.
Putting it all together
After removing any redundant content, focusing in on the content that really mattered, and moving through the user testing phases, we managed to condense 40 pages of Admissions content into just 11 pages of meaningful content.
