Documentation Committee Meeting Notes
Date: 3/16/99
Present: Martha Walker, Marianne Hansen, Angi Faiks, Lori Micho, Lance Heidig
Recorder: Martha Walker

I. Gateway Help Update:
a) Angi reported that the Gateway Committee is considering the multiple
proposed search options available on various Gateway pages. Are all proposed search sites necessary? Will multiple search sites confuse patrons? (Post meeting note: the Gateway Committee discussed this at their 3/9 meeting -- see item 1 of Ed Weissman's notes of that meeting.)  
b) We also discussed site mapping and the proposed graphic depiction of our information space (catalog/networked resources/web, as discussed at the IRPC meeting of 3/8). We decided that we should hold-off on the graphic depiction proposal until the new lms is up and running. For the present, we may want to include a simple Venn diagram (something we could create) to augment our textual explanations. Adam Smith is looking into site mapping options for the About CUL group. We may also want to consider site-mapping for the Help pages. Angi will look into organizing a meeting to discuss areas of project overlap.
c) Angi reported on the special IRPC meeting of 3/8, at which Martha and
Angi presented the proposed revised HELP, and the general response to our
proposal: In regards to the question of what to call  the Help button (should the wording change?), it seemed the general consensus was to leave Help as Help (don't change to Research and Tech. Help and don't separate the two). After the meeting, someone suggested to Angi that the Research Assistance portion of the Help outline be included in the library services page. Also, the notion of a Help icon in the footer is a possibility that Marty will bring up with the Gateway Committee. We all agreed that we should try to find ways to make help more relative to a specific problem -- "point of problem Help" -- such as when error message occur. Unfortunately, we have no control over Netscape, telnet or TN3270 messages. Ideally, Help should be available wherever Help is needed, not simply confined to the Help page. We decided that one or all of us will survey pages throughout the Gateway, keeping in mind where additional Help might be most useful.
d) Angi suggested that we think about advertising Help in the fall, perhaps at the Library Technology Fair.
e) Angi also spoke with Holly about providing Help support for PES, and John Fereira's time in regards to revised Help. John has time to dedicate to this project now.
f) The Gateway Committee had asked Angi to have the Help WG look at some
forms, which were mostly related to access services. Lance and Lori reviewed numerous forms and made recommendations to improve wording consistency. These recommendations will be reviewed by ASPC and the GW Committee.
g) Angi announced that the configuration checker problem is solved. Unix
and Linux have also been addressed.
h) Two recent technical problems/solutions will be added to Help.  One has to do with corrupt versions of DataComet. The other has to do with Javascript errors generated by partial pages being stuck in a browser's cache.

II. Martha explained additions to the revised Help outline as presented at the IRPC meeting of 3/8: Martha split the "genre" guides we had brainstormed into format and content guides, occupying different locations in the outlined sequence. Web resources were also added to the outline. A general discussion of the outline organization followed which led into our next topic, the proposed user study.

III. Angi outlined the user study we plan to undertake in April. This
is a process Nan Hyland used when she worked at Apple. We will discuss
our plans with Ed and ask for some funding to compensate study
participants. The focus of the study is to gain an understanding of how
users would tend to organize the contents of Help. We will be looking for
twelve participants for this study, including graduate and undergraduate
students, faculty, and library staff (3 each). Lance, Martha, Angi, and

Nan will compile the data. Angi noted that although the study group will
be small, the data they generate will be ample and that we should expect
to see certain trends in the result, which we will then use to inform our
thinking on the arrangement of Help contents.

IV. Help Revision Timeline: We hope to have revised Help up and running by the start of the fall semester. We need to prepare numerous documents to address new areas of content over the next four months. Some sections of Help already exist and will only require transfer -- not revision. We will be preparing other sections from scratch. Martha and Angi will draw up a list of guides which need to be created or modified in content or format and then we can start claiming responsibility for specific areas.

V. Subject Searching in the CU Library Catalog: Martha reported that the paper version is in its final draft and will be made available to the public and to order soon.

VI. Library Guide: Martha reported that we need to get the revised manuscript to University Publications by May 12th in order to receive the final version by our requested July 23rd delivery date. Martha has started to notify anyone who might be interested in contributing to the revision of the guide, asking that all suggested changes be mailed to her by April 9th. This will give us a little more than a month to revise the text and have any changes approved.

VII. April meetings: April 1, 11-12:30, Mann Conference Room and April 13, 8:30-10, Olin 106.