We don't do tabs (we use SubjectsPlus, not Libguides). Our rules about side
columns read as follows:
Left Column should contain primary content.
Right column should contain supplemental content including, but not limited
- Dashboard (directly under subject specialist)
- Other content may include Related guides, Selected journals / RSS,
Associations, Help documents.
Not very strict, since "primary" and "supplemental" are subjective. I've
also had to remind that their right-column content will display below their
left column content on a smaller screen.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Josh Welker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks.Do you have any guidelines around the numbers and colors of tabs?
> That is one of the big issues. Also, do you have rules around what is
> allowed in side columns?
> Josh Welker
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Ron Gilmour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > At Ithaca College, the web team has recently written some very loose
> > guidelines on the construction of subject guides. Generally, we stayed
> > from saying much about content, so most of the rules apply to the
> > and placement of certain common structural elements. For example, there
> > should always be contact information for the librarian and this should
> > always be in the top right. There should be table of contents (unless the
> > guide is really short) and it should be located at the top of the main
> > column.
> > There are also some rules that are intended to prevent responsivity
> > problems (e.g., wrap your embedded videos in a <div
> > class="fitvid<http://fitvidsjs.com/>">
> > to make sure they are usable on mobile devices).
> > In order to keep a reasonable content hierarchy, we ask that librarians
> > only h3 or lower for internal headers.
> > We've specified what we call a "dashboard" widget that contains links to,
> > well, things that are often linked to from subject guides (e.g., ILL,
> > citation info). This element is required on all guides.
> > Regarding buy-in, we stressed that these rules were based on responses
> > actual users in usability tests. This is convincing to most (not all)
> > librarians. Our usability tests showed that consistency across guides is
> > important to users. We presented the rules as representing a balance
> > between pedagogical freedom for librarians and the need for consistency
> > ease of navigation for users. (A paper on this is currently under
> > Enforcement has not been a major issue. Content-creators have been
> *cough* we
> > use tasers *cough* very cooperative.
> > Ron Gilmour
> > Web Services Librarian
> > Ithaca College Library
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Joshua Welker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> One of the recurring themes in the LibGuides thread was that libraries
> >> need better policies regarding content and style management in guides. I
> >> wholeheartedly agree here, but my attempts to do so in the past were
> >> down in favor of giving all librarians maximum freedom.
> >> I have two questions:
> >> 1) What kind of policies do you all have in place for subject guide
> >> and content management?
> >> 2) How do you get librarians to buy in to the policies, and how are they
> >> enforced?
> >> Josh Welker
> >> Information Technology Librarian
> >> James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> >> University of Central Missouri
> >> Warrensburg, MO 64093
> >> JCKL 2260
> >> 660.543.8022
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >> Jimmy Ghaphery
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:49 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LibGuides: I don't get it
> >> I have followed this thread with great interest. In 2011 Erin White and
> >> researched many of the issues the group has been hitting on,
> >> the popularity of LibGuides in ARL libraries, the locus of control
> >> of systems' departments, and the state of content policies.
> >> Our most challenging statement in the article to the library tech
> >> community (which was watered down a bit in the peer review process) was
> >> "The popularity of LibGuides, at its heart a specialized content
> >> management system, also calls into question the vitality and/or
> >> adaptability of local content management system implementations in
> >> libraries."
> >> One of the biggest challenges I see toward creating a non-commercial
> >> alternative is that the library code community is so dispersed in the
> >> various institutions that it makes it difficult to get away from the
> >> download tar.gz model. Are our institutions ready to collaborate across
> >> themselves such that there could be a shared SaaS model (of anything
> >> really) that libraries could subscribe/contribute to? The barriers here
> >> certainly aren't technological, but more along the lines of policy,
> >> governance, etc.
> >> As for Research Guides in general, I see a very clear divide in the
> >> public/tech communities not only on platform but more philosophical.
> >> the tech side once it is all boiled down, heck why do you even need a
> >> third party system; catalog the databases with some type of local genres
> >> and push out an api/xml feeds to various disciplines. From the public
> >> there is a long lineage of individually curated guides that goes to the
> >> core of value of professionally knowing one's community and serving it.
> >>  https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/1830
> >> best,
> >> Jimmy
> >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Galen Charlton <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> There's not a lock-in issue with LibGuides, because it's used to
> >>>> host pathfinders. Those are supposed to be periodically revisited.
> >>>> One of
> >>> the
> >>>> big problems is that librarians will start a guide and never finish,
> >>>> or make one then never maintain it. Periodically deleting
> >>>> everything is a good thing for pathfinders and subject guides, and
> >>>> people should do it anyway. No one's talking about tools for
> >>>> digital archives, which have
> >>> lock
> >>>> in issues and are way more expensive.
> >>> Lock-in doesn't have to be absolute to be effective, it just has to
> >>> has raise the bar sufficiently high to make users think twice about
> >>> migrating away.
> >>> This applies even if the data to be moved is transitory and constantly
> >>> changing. For example, if a library has been diligently updating
> >>> pathfinders, but wants to switch platforms, if there were no way to
> >>> export them to load into the successor system, the effort of redoing
> >>> them or doing a lot of copy-and-pasting could be prohibitive.
> >>> As a general statement -- and I know that this battle has been
> >>> bitterly fought in the ILS space -- I believe that *all* library
> >>> software services, whether based on F/LOSS software or proprietary
> >>> software, should provide a way for the library to obtain a full dump
> >>> of their data, in an accessible format, at no additional charge.
> >>> I see that LibGuides advertises the ability to make local backups of
> >>> individual pages and also provides (via a paid add-on module) an XML
> >>> export function. I don't know if SpringShare will also provide free
> >>> one-time exports on request, but I would hope they do.
> >>> Of course, even if one has the data in hand, data migrations can still
> >>> take a lot of time, effort, and expertise.
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Galen
> >>> --
> >>> Galen Charlton
> >>> Manager of Implementation
> >>> Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
> >>> email: [log in to unmask]
> >>> direct: +1 770-709-5581
> >>> cell: +1 404-984-4366
> >>> skype: gmcharlt
> >>> web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
> >>> Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
> >>> http://evergreen-ils.org
> >> --
> >> Jimmy Ghaphery
> >> Head, Digital Technologies
> >> VCU Libraries
> >> 804-827-3551