Phytosanitary Resources Page
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Phytosanitary Resources Page: Reorganisation plan Background The Capacity Development Committee (CDC) of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) asked Green Ink to undertake an examination of phytosanitary.info with a view to possibly reorganising the content and presentation of the material available on the website. An earlier report (WO4-T2 Report 2015-07-01) covered the assessment of the site and responses to a set of semi-structured interview questions, while WO4- T3 Report 2015-09-03 reported on promoting and monitoring for the site. Although both reports contained recommendations for changes to the site, they did not detail how those changes might be implemented. The Work Order specifies that these are the basis of Task 4: Produce a proposed plan for reorganization of the Phytosanitary Resources page. This should be based on a review of existing layout and content of the page. This document is our response to Task 4. Introduction As we have indicated previously, it is difficult to produce a reorganisation plan for the phytosanitary.info website1 without a very much clearer idea of the resources that could be devoted to meeting the CDC’s objectives for the site. Two questions, in particular, need to be answered with clarity before you undertake any reorganisation. Is the site going to continue to develop as a library, or will it pivot to become more of a catalogue? Is there any possibility of appointing a web editor with subject matter and technical knowledge? The answers will determine what is possible for the reorganisation. Library versus catalogue The objective of the site is clear: to “serve as a repository of information, databases, tools and technical resources developed by the IPPC Secretariat 1 Note that although IPPC commonly refers to the site as a “page” this is misleading, as it actually consists of a very large number of pages. We will generally refer to the site as a whole, except when we specifically mean individual pages, such as might be found under one of the navigation tabs. WO4-T4 Report DRAFT 2 1 and contributed by external plant health organizations to support the implementation of the IPPC and its standards.” Largely as a result, the site tries to maintain copies of contributed documents on the site. We question, however, whether this is a good approach for an online resource. The primary difficulty is that having copies of resources on the site means that they easily can become disconnected from the most up-to-date versions. If a contributor updates the resource on their own site and fails to notify the CDC or to upload the new version to phytosanitary.info, then the version on the site becomes less useful. One solution might be to ask contributors to check their submissions on a regular basis to ensure that they are up to date, but this would put an additional burden on the contributors. A better solution, in our opinion, is to host links to resources, rather than the resources themselves. This uses the power of hyperlinks to simplify the process of making useful information available to visitors to the site. It simplifies the submission process, which might result in more submissions. It probably also simplifies the approval process. 2 Combined with curated summaries, it makes searching on the site a more powerful tool. Finally, it makes it easier to maintain the information on the site, because it is relatively easy to automate the process of checking each link on a regular basis.3 Some visitors are said to have poor connectivity, which makes it valuable for them to be able to access documents directly from the site. However, if connectivity is poor, it is surely as poor for access to the phytosanitary.info site as it is to other sites via hyperlinks. Unless the CDC is considering distributing the entire site as a standalone application, this is a weak reason to hold copies of documents that can be found elsewhere. There does seem to be an increasing trend to have links on the site, particularly to other websites where there is really no alternative, short of embedding that site in a frame on the phytosanitary site. At this stage in the phytosanitary.info site’s evolution, there are few enough resources that converting all contributed resources to links, as part of a thorough review of the resources, could be considered. Human curation In previous reports, we have pointed out that the usability of the site suffers as a result of its over-reliance on automated methods, for example in presenting results for browsing and search. We have previously indicated areas in which we believe that a person with some subject knowledge and technical ability 2 It could even remove the need for formal approval, replacing it with a yes/no decision and a blanket statement that the submissions are provided for information and are not endorsed by the CDC. 3 The need for regular checking cannot be overstressed, as the table in the Annex reveals with over 130 broken links. WO4-T4 Report DRAFT 2 2 would be able to make the resources easier to find, and hence make the site much easier to use. The most important aspect of the planned reorganisation, in our view, is to appoint a web editor who is capable of preparing and working with the material online and is empowered to do so. If the CDC decides to address this issue, we foresee an initial, intense period in which existing material is reorganised and brought up to date, followed by a less intense period of maintenance and absorption of new resources. Site organisation In the Task 2 Report, we made several observations about the organisation of the site and the presentation of information, and suggested a new information architecture. To summarise, we recommended testing a main menu with the following tabs: About Resources Projects Consultants Library Contributed Images Resources Technical Videos and Resources Presentations IPPC Media Standards resources The secondary menu should be removed and a link to IPPC Standards placed under Resources. The link to the IRSS Helpdesk could be placed in a footer. Overall, the number of modules on the index page (and elsewhere) should be reduced. Many of these are forms of search (see below) or duplicate information that is better placed elsewhere. All could be replaced with a single module of Useful Links. Search The site is intended to be a repository of useful phytosanitary information. The ability to search and browse — and to decide quickly whether the information the searcher needs can be found on the site — is thus crucial to meeting this objective. Better presentation of search results is arguably the most important change necessary to improve the site. The Work Order recognises this, referring specifically to the need for site visitors to be able to find materials by topic, by pest and by source as well as information on consultants with specific expertise and online courses. There are two ways in which site visitors search for information: so-called organic searches, before they have arrived at the site, and internal searches, after arriving. Both must be reorganised. WO4-T4 Report DRAFT 2 3 Organic search Search engines, of which Google is the best known, use automated “spiders” to index the contents of a website. The information gathered by the spider, which includes incoming links that point to the site in question and many other factors, is then used by the search engine to build an overall index and give each of the site’s pages a weighting, or rank, for the words on the page. When a visitor types a term into the search engine, it returns a ranked list of pages that it believes meet the searcher’s needs. Many searchers never venture beyond the first page of search engine results. Thus if your page has a low rank in searches for a topic, most visitors will never get there from a search engine. As pointed out in the T2 report, the phytosanitary.info site does very poorly in Google searches.4 So although the site may well provide information that people are looking for, they most likely will not find it through a search engine. Several steps can be taken to improve search rankings and usability: Fix the robots.txt file on the site so that it allows search engines to crawl the site and offer a description based on the metadata provided by the site. Ensure that the PDFs hosted on the site can be crawled and indexed. That would involve completing the metadata for each PDF, giving it a search-friendly title that makes good use of keywords; checking that any links in the PDF are accurate; and ensuring that the version of the PDF on the site is suitable for the majority of PDF readers. Curate the title and summary text of PDFs and put the summary on the HTML page, so that even if the PDF on its own would not be highly ranked, the HTML page that refers to it is highly ranked. Internal search At present, the site offers far too many ways to search for and browse content, none of which is particularly useful. Many of the modules on various pages are versions of search, but they are idiosyncratic in the results that they present (examples were noted in the T2 report). If the site is optimised for external searches, a viable approach to internal search would then be to present the results of a Google search, restricted to the phytosanitary.info domain, on the site, using a Drupal module that implements the Google Custom Search Engine.