Right now, when a website selector wants to make a change to their section, they send me the proposed change, which I almost always approve, and then I send it on to John Harper. What if the recommended websites were a wiki and the selectors were able to make changes on their own? I know this might be moot when we redesign, but we may be able to work in some of this functionality.
Julie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes! Changing the sites is way too complicated right now. Making them easily changeable would help so much in terms of keeping them current!
Frankly, I'm not fond of the editing style of wikis - it's less precise than html, which I am very comfortable with. (But I suppose I could get used to it.)
I agree that each selector being able to make changes instead of funneling the work through one person would be good, but do the sites really need to be updated that much? If we're getting rid of them or redesigning them, do we need an interim fix?
I'm thinking that instead of a list of sites, we spotlight topics or even sites, like taxes or women's history or health or vacation spots. We can keep a list of local information, but I'm not sure the rest is essential anymore.
I agree with Marcie that a semi-static list of sites is not what we want to end up with. I like the idea of topics with multiple information types -- I think Phoenix has something like that -- including websites, an RSS feed of new books/vids/etc., ebooks, and/or databases/canned database searches. Someone will still have to take care of these topics and keep them up to date, and we should try to find a way to make that easy and quick.
As an alternative to pbwiki, which uses the coding editor, how about wikispaces.com? (Check out the interactive tour.) It's similar to our blog setup, with a wysiwyg (graphical) editor. I think I could manage that one...
Post a Comment