WiserEarth Editors
Collaboration in serving the greater WiserEarth community
As active community members, we would like to make this group into a gathering point where we can work together to transform WiserEarth.org into an effective platform of support for the global community of concerned citizens and organizations who are working to create a more just and sustainable world. ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Nov 20, 2007
Updated: Nov 27, 2009
Membership: Invitation Only
Semi-Private
Topic: Organization profile redesign
Posts (1 - 20 of 44)
|
|
Very cool! I think it is a significant improvement. It feels much more spacious, and I really like how there's more of a horizontal setup as opposed to the current more-vertical setup. Yay for colored buttons and larger text. I have a few thoughts for Shawn on his future re-design.
First, I would think about how to accomodate orgs that have tons of areas of focus. Maybe orgs can pick a limited number to display?
Secondly, I have mixed feelings about the section on how "complete" the profile is. It made me think of LinkedIn right away. But I do think it's smart to somehow alert orgs about parts of their profile that they are missing. But what exactly is the criteria for a "complete" profile on WiserEarth? Linked-in's criteria irks me.
Also I'm not sure what the "Organizations section" means. Are they "connections" of the Sierra Club or are they local Sierra Club chapters? Maybe the section can have a custom title. Some organizations will want to connect only local chapters, some will want to display partners, some will want both.
|
|
@ Michael: Great input. I think I can answer a few of your questions:
First on AOFs (aka Interest Areas), there is now a limit to 10 per record on WiserEarth, so in the future the maximum is 10. We could presume that the AOFs are in some order of importance since the list can be ordered and the data entry order probably favors more important AOFs. So I don't have too much of a problem only showing the first five AOFs - as long as the longer list is available. In the final design we need some way to show all the meta data - probably an expansion downward in the left column below the current AOF line.
Second, what ideas do you have on how to compute the 'completeness'?
Third, 'Organizations' section is supposed to represent organizations that are connected in any way. At present the list is presented in alphabetical order and not by the relationship type. But it seems you are suggesting to show more formal connections first and then partnerships? Do note that many relationships (most?) are not described so its only 'A is connected to B', not how.
Keep the ideas coming! |
|
Hey Michael - good point about the never-ending completion percentage on LinkedIn. Perhaps one way of addressing it would be for us to develop a checklist of things for full completion, and have that checklist expand down to let the users know what else needs to be filled to get 100%. That way, they get a sense as to how much is left, and they won't have to edit random fields for the profile and hope that fills up the progress bar.
|
|
|
@ Honore: Good idea. There are of course some fields - like the certifications - that many organizations will not have which should not be included in the list. Also, there are some fields like basic contact information that are more important and perhaps should be weighted as such, or at least turn up at the top of the list you proposed.
|
|
Hello
The new UI looks great! Congratulations to Shawn! I share the mixed feelings about the percentage of completion à la LinkedIn, and would prefer a "Help completing this profile", with a + opening a checklist of missing elements. I'm not sure about the people appearing first in the "we're connected" panel. Of course in the example it makes sense because people have a specific role showing they are a member of the organization. Is it intended to show people there only in this case? Otherwise, would not it be better to show connected organizations and groups at the top? Those are very small remarks I must agree.
|
|
Hi, Great work Shawn. Here are a couple of pieces of usability feedback based on my first impressions:
- how do i edit this page? It would be good to see what it looks like with the edit buttons
- the tabs at the top say 'Connect' and Contribute' - but if i click on connect, then I think I'm going to be connecting to the organization - perhaps these drop-downs need to be differentiated more from the content of the org profile page so that it's clear they are primary navigation for the site. The tab 'connect' should probably read "Explore" if this is to browse the rest of the site.
- what is the difference between the 'add organization to your' and 'connect to org'? As a user, I'm confused, i think I'd only want one of these
- the typeface for 'the 'Mission' and 'We're connected' looks a bit unusual - not sure how many typefaces are being used here..but this seems to be a new one on the site. I'd prefer non-italicized.
- The grey bar at the top is quite dark - it says Organization and then Action - but it's a bit difficult to read. Maybe the bar needs to be in a different color or even split into 2, so that the right hand action bar/column is separate.
- I'm Ok with people appearing at the top and I like the fact there is a relationship added, but we need a 'See all' link. It would be good if the organizations could have a 'relationship too' e.g. chapters - these need to be a hypertext link if there are many of them, otherwise the page will look too cluttered. 'See all chapters' and perhaps a 'See all connected organizations'
- i agree that the profile bar is a little bit too 'corporate/LinkedIn', so maybe this could be a 'Help completing this profile' as Bernard suggested.
- the thick black lines between the groups and organizations seems very heavy, could it be lightened up a bit but still enough to differentiate.
- finally it would be good to see what this would look like when the organization only has the minimal pieces of information entered - I think this is a good test of the design, as if it works when it's more or less empty (say only the About section is filled in, email and address), then that's great. |
|
|
Awesome feedback everyone!
I have just one quick feedback for today: The website field needs to stand out from the rest of the metadata if we want visitors to click on it. |
|
Hello All...
Reading over the comments preceding mine, they all seem to be well-taken points, to which I'd like to add the following:
Thanks to Shawn and everyone else for taking this on!!! |
|
Thanks to everyone for their good work here. I no longer see the connections to the other wiserearth elements, i.e. resources, events, etc. Are they not showing because they don't exist on the profile? Are we also planning to continue to allow visitors a way to visualize the network of connections? Thanks again for all the good input and design by Shawn!
|
|
page design looks fabulous .... my concern is the content ... having organization's mission statement and background occupying such prime real estate (i.e., center column) .... how about moving this material to the right with just 'teasers perhaps linking out to the organization's site itself and using the main content space to promote the organization's current activities.... For example, take a look at the Sierra CLubs home page currently, they have a flash screen which showcases their current major areas of focus and encourage visitors to become involved....
The immediacy of this is a real attention grabber as opposed to content which reflects on the organization's ideaology....
Similarly, I'd like to see the news feed more prominent, changed perhaps to read 'Related News" .... or some such qualifier as this is news which is not ABOUT Sierra Club but about issues related to their AofFs.... Pages need to seem like LIVE SHOTS ...
great work... |
|
I liked the visualization option too
Where are the resources? like [jonramer] i am missing those too!
profile completion should be for group/org admin not for public - too annoying.? i am also in agreement with [jpms] about the ability to edit the org pages freely as a user.....
in agreement with [camilla] on the need to see what the page looks like when it is nearer to empty.
what makes a page ACTIVE...if it means that it has been updated within some amount of time X, then that is the only info that really is needed for public view?
and, like everyone, THANKS!!! because it does look better and more accessible and "fresher"
~h |
|
|
@hlehman: Page status i.e. 'Active' is set when the page is created (default 'Active') but can be changed by Editors and Admins to other statuses e.g. Duplicate, Removed etc. A regular user basically only ever sees 'Active' pages. In the new design we are de-emphasizing the page status by putting it lower down the page where it is not very visible.
@hlehman / JPMS: Restricting editing of org pages to editors / admins presume that we will have a large hyper-active Editor / Admin community. In actuality we have a hard time attracting edits even with all our members being able to edit these pages. Also, representatives of organizations presumably would want to be able to edit their org page and we currently have no way for an org to 'claim' their page. Currently we are really applying the 'wikipedia' model - that the more edits on a page the more likely it is to be accurate, and with an Editor and Admin class you can manage the ocassional bad post or community member who is not adhering to community guidelines. |
|
|
@ Boatsie:
You said: "Similarly, I'd like to see the news feed more prominent, changed perhaps to read 'Related News" .... or some such qualifier as this is news which is not ABOUT Sierra Club but about issues related to their AofFs...."
Actually, at present the design is for the news feed to be ABOUT that organization. e.g. an RSS feed of press releases that is provided on an organization's website. It would not be related news based on AOF etc. Not all organizations would have an RSS feed and therefore not all profiles a News section. Once we have the new design up it would be great for us as Editors to update the top 500 organizations (by pageviews) to include such information. Down the road we might want to include an organization's YouTube channel (if they have one) or their Flickr photo albums. |
|
Hi Folks,
I agree the new design is an improvement. It is simpler! Or at any rate it feels simpler. Simpler is what we need everywhere in WE. On the nit-picking side, I have a couple comments, too. The "3/45" and "5/45" what are those? Everything needs to be obvious to the newcomer. Also, maybe it is just my old eyes, but why would we ever use gray as text color?
-- Roger |
|
|
Thanks for your excellent feedback - I've been playing around with Shawn's initial design to incorporate some of the ideas bandied about here, as well as some things we wanted to carry over from the IDEO design. We'll be talking with Shawn on Thursday, with all your feedback considered, but meanwhile, this latest mockup addresses quite a few of your concerns.
A few things to note: I've added "Events" into the right-hand side, and that's probably where we would also put jobs and resources if any such connections exist. If resources become rather bug, we'll likely move it to the center section. But as you can see, we're starting to creep back in way too many things on one page - so I want to be wary of going from a "clean" design back to a cluttered one.
Regarding the "Actions", we're still in the process of refining them, so consider them mostly as placeholders and not finalized functions.
Also, the color scheme is something we'll be sure to go over with Shawn, so please overlook the dark gray bar or anything other color-related issues.
Lastly, you might notice there's a dotted line about halfway down the page. That's where things fall "below the fold", meaning where most users will have to scroll down to see content. It's about 650 pixels in height from the top of the page to the dotted line. The reason it's not a full 800 pixels in height is because you account for the browser menus, browser toolbars, and that most users don't have the browser window stretched to the full width. So you want to put the most important stuff above the dotted line, since that's what most users are able to see right away.
I won't bother to list out any of the visual changes on this mockup, and let you guys explore and see if these rendition addresses a few of the issues mentioned above. Thanks to everyone who's offering their thoughts - it's a great way to involve the community in building a website! |
|
Hello All,
Personally, I have really enjoyed the natural, clean and fresh look/ branding of the wiser earth website as it is now. Is there a way to incorporate the wiser earth logo into this design?
ortixia.
|
|
|
Hi ortixia,
Actually, we wanted to minimize the WiserEarth logo after hearing from our past group administrators. Their main concern was that they wanted to have a space that "felt like their own", instead of being branded as WiserEarth's. So that's why we've deliberately gone out of our way to minimize WiserEarth's presence on the group site. This is the first I've definitely heard of a group admin wanting the WiserEarth logo on the site - but I'm thinking that perhaps we can help accommodate those unique situations with some HTML wizardry. Hope this answers your question -
Thanks, Honore |
|
|
Hey Roger - the 3/45 or 5/45 is something you'll see in your groups right now - it means there's 3 documents visible out of a total of 45 documents. It works quite well for our groups, and if you were to hover your mouse over the number, it would bring up a small tooltip that said "See All". Clicking on that would allow you to go to page that showed all the documents available for that section. In the above edit, we decided not go with the use of numbers and use a text based "see all" link instead - hopefully that's a welcome change.
|
|
|
Whoops! You're spot-on, Camilla - I must have gotten my head wrapped around something else, cause Ortixia is absolutely right - the WiserEarth logo is rather missing, so we should reconsider if there's room to put that in somewhere.
|
Hi all,
Exciting news!
Fyi, organization pages represent 40% of traffic to WE and over 80% of the content on our site. So this redesign is of strategic importance.
Click on the the thumbnail to the right, and help us check if it's sufficient to achieve our goals for this first iteration of the redesign (there'll be a second one later this year):
We're gonna need to have your good thinking on this by Wednesday night (US time, PST), as our feedback will be channeled back to Shawn the following day toward a final version.
Thanks, and looking forward!
Bowo
p.s. this mockup btw, is based on a pro-bono design work done by our good friends from IDEO a while back.