BCSS Website - have your say

[Bill]

The BCSS has appointed contractors to design and build the Society a completely new web presence. This will mean all new software, all new look for everything. So what would you like to see?

This is our working document:

1. Design/look – this will be in part dictated by our house style but we need to remember what looks good for the journal, may not work so well for the website, which is one of the reasons we are paying an outside company. This will also be dictated in part by our target audience (which is?). Logos, font (still humanist 521 bt?), do we keep the website logo and the “research conserve” etc, I would say yes not just because its mine but because it’s probably the only thing worth keeping to link between the old and new.
2. Structure - essentially what is on the front page and how users navigate round the site, we need to decide what are the most important elements to have foremost (also dictated in part by our target audience), but be guided by the contractors. I am not sure what we currently have on the front isn’t far off it just need to be snappier and have more plant appeal! The structure definitely needs a bit of work.
3. Functionality - calendar/diary, forum, gallery, shop, profiles, social media integration, sign up for site notifications, blog, journal downloads etc.
User groups:
a. Guests
b. Members
c. Forum/Gallery Moderators
d. Branch officers – add events to dairy
e. Shows Committee – edit/add own pages
f. Conservation Committee - edit/add own pages
g. Research Committee - edit/add own pages
h. Trustees – editor status
i. Membership team – db functionality
j. Super user – control site, approve edits?

4. Public content – Clearly there is quite a bit of content on the current site that probably doesn’t need to be public facing, but what do we need on the to appeal to the public? This and number 5 are really the biggest job for us, I have attached a site map that lists all the existing pages, (it will open in your browser). We won’t be limited to what we go live with, adding new pages is simple, but what we do go live with has to be right, people will have to take responsibility to update, correct existing content and write new content
5. Members content – apart from society information and downloads what can we do to add value for members.
6. Branch/Officers content – secretaries pack and…….

It would be useful if any comments, suggestions etc refer to the numbers above, then this will make it easier to add to the right bit and build a document from which we can work. Don’t be afraid to state the bleeding obvious!

We will also be looking for "reporters" to produce news stories and features for the site, no web experience necessary..

Bill Hildyard

[MilesCactus]

Maybe more info on various species and cultivation and a better page layout

[rodsmith]

I don't have any major issues with the current layout except that I feel we could put more emphasis on the branch structure. I know that some branches have closed recently due to falling attendances and it is possible, if the branches were more prominently highlighted on the first page of the website, that we might improve our attendances.
With the current layout it isn't obvious that we have branches with regular meetings unless you click on the Taking Part tab and then look down the list on the right hand side of the page with the heading Branches and Regional Zones. This probably won't mean much to the casual viewer and certainly isn't an encouragement to attend a branch meeting..

[Acid John]

Re part 1- Can we have bigger buttons please. When reading on a tablet and attempting to access unread posts I often tap the original posters profile instead. Most annoying.

[Jim_Mercer]

The quick thoughts are...

A gallery that works would be nice, last picture uploaded seems to be one I did in January 2016. I used to add photo comp winners but have not been able to do so for over a year!

Would it be possible to fill the screen better, current software leaves big gaps when viewed on normal (landscape) computer screen. At my normal settings forum occupies less than half of my screen but society site is a bit bigger - forum appears 22cm wide and main site 27cm

I agree with previous comment - we need to make it more obvious to people that local branches exist and also show their activities so perhaps include branch programmes on main site, not sure how feasible it would be to actually make individual branch sites sub-sites of the main site to follow the same look and feel.

[Bill]

Thanks for the comments so far.

As for branches, they are on the front page:

The should appear the same but on the new site they will be using the same architecture so will be seamless, personally any sites that appear too small on my screen I zoom in a bit and leave that tab as is,but will take it on board.

Bill

[Jim_Mercer]

Problem with zooming is that everything gets big so less text on the screen:-

At 100% blank space either side but text is easy to for me to read

Zooming to 250% fills the screen but not much content visible and text is too big

The file names for the above pictures are correct but for some reason the forum software is displaying them the wrong way round - I have edited the post to put the images in the wrong place so they appear correct!

[Phil_SK]

First thoughts...

1. I would expect you to be advised by the outside company (OC) on how appropriate Humanist521 is for a website. If it isn’t, then it should be possible to use something different whilst preserving the common house style of CactusWorld and a website.
“do we keep the website logo and the “research conserve” etc” There should be a Society logo, not a separate website logo, so no.
I’m not a huge fan of the muddy green. Separately, the way we use coloured blocks and backgrounds is dated. If you look at modern websites, they are much ‘cleaner’ and rely on imagery to provide visual interest.
The design and look of branch sub-websites and zone sub-websites - and they should exist - must become much more uniform. People who run DIY ones (like me) need to be told that this must end, as must those who host their own. Content must be editable by someone within the branch and it shouldn’t be accepted that nobody in a branch can be found to do the editing. It should be so simple to upload the basics that nobody can plead incompetence but a degree of flexibility as to types of content would be desireable to suit local needs. There is a role, perhaps, for zones to support their fellow branches if they need help getting started. I expect there to be some consultation of my branch’s needs at some point.

2. I understand the desire to have branches prominently on the front page but it’s a desire that should be resisted. There will be a long list of things that people will propose should get a ‘top billing’ but having link overload on the homepage will leave it looking a mess. I exaggerate for effect but don’t forget where we came from - lots of links with branches top of the list.
The BCSS website contains an awful lot of stuff! Some of this must be easy to find but the OC should be able to engineer this without there being lots of visual junk on the homepage. Inevitably, some of the less vital stuff might be a bit tricky to find but that’s a price worth paying. Going through all the pages and prioritising them would be worthwhile.
3. Integrating all of the functions sounds, to me, like the most monumentally difficult task and it is for this that I’m glad there is an OC with experience doing this. But, yes, I should be able to download the calendar to my electronic calendar of choice, I should be able to use a forum that looks BCSS-like rather than phpBB-like and, ideally is less at the mercy of phpBB/similar and is useable on a range of platforms with sensibly-sized buttons (=‘responsive’).
Every BCSS member should be interacting with the website logged on, so that their experience of it is personalised. That might only mean simple things for now eg. that there’s an easy link to their branch site (rather than having to scroll through all of them) from their profile/homepage. There’s a hell of a lot of the website ‘junk’ that could be members’ only - more for tidiness for non-members rather than some sense of secrecy. More coordinated electronic communications would be welcome - I currently get BCSS Announce, BCSS monthly newsletter through mailchimp (hooray! - should’ve happened years ago!) and a monthly email from my branch Chair. Yes, opting in/out of these and having them more joined up, if only in style, would be a step forward.
There has to be more responsibility for updating the website placed on officials at every level. It isn’t acceptable for there to be one person to whom everybody else sends things when they want something changing. An interface that allows edits to be made by those who might not have great computer skills is essential. So it should be the BoT minutes secretary uploading the BoT meeting minutes, the seed distributor/purchaser uploading the seedlists/extra info and someone within the conservation cttee team keeping their projects list up-to-date. The current set up isn’t very resilient if a storm knocking out a phone line or one individual’s ill health brings everything to a halt.
I’m unsure of the value of a gallery: despite having been a contributor in the past I’m not sure what the point of it is. Is it a ‘here’s my plant’ thing or a curated resource of national or international importance? Or can it sit inbetween? As it was I feel it was both and neither. Maybe the BCSS should take a view on what it wants its gallery to be.

6. Branch/Officers content – secretaries pack and……. From the BoT minutes of December 2009 meeting: “A start had been made on revising the Secretary’s Pack, but” Perhaps having the content to put on the website should be as much of a priority as working out how to slot it in!

[Bill]

Thanks Phil, some interesting points.

Certainly I don't expect the colours to survive.

The branch sites is a major bone of contention, I wholeheartedly agree with what you say and that we should impose a house style on the branch sites, however I proposed that the branch sites were out of scope of this project, due to the fact the BoT respects the independence of the branches and that there could be problems with imposing a house sytle on them. That said we should set guidelines for a house style that we would like the branches to adhere to.

As it happens I am not the only one who can edit the site, several others can too, touch wood editing the site has never been an issue, its copy that has been the problem. But it is a property for me to have various officials/committees to take ownership, even if there is an approval system for any edits.

Actually I missed a bit out, the intention is to have the gallery curated so it becomes a valuable resource rather than a collection of pretty photos.

I wont comment on the sec.s pack but it will have to be ready for the new site!!

Thanks again

bill

[Chris in Leeds]

Maybe the big question is how much this is going to cost the charity/society as you say contractors not volunteers as is what you and Tony and the rest do
I know there is a lot of members that don't use the website or forum and they might see it as a waste of funds that could be spent on better things
Bill if you don't think it appropriate to post please delete