User View
Most of the work for this was done in the initial audit. We started by defining a tree
structure of what the main sections of the site were, and then defined sub-sections as well
as the dynamic content.
Home
About the Centre
Article A
Article B, etc.
Sustainable Products
Article A etc.
Center for Design at RMIT Case Study
260
Client A
Client B etc.
Publication A
Publication B etc.
Link A
Link B, etc.
Project A
Project B, etc.
Training A
Research & Consulting
Article A
Article B
Publications
Publication A
Publication B
Sustainable Products
Publication A, B, etc.
Sustainable Buildings
Publication A, B, etc.
Life Cycle Assessment
Publication A, B, etc.
Note: Items in italics were added by the client.
Most of the structure was straightforward. There were a number of sections, and in each
section, different types of content could be stored. The complexity arose when content
placed in one section was to also appear in another section. For example, a publication
appearing in the main section Sustainable Products would also appear under the main
section Publications in the Sustainable Products sub-section.
Although the tree structure accurately captured how the user was to view the site, we
found that it was difficult for the client to visualize how this would translate into a
website. It also did not clearly show that a publication shown in different sections was in
fact the same content (just one key feature of a CMS). In later implementations, we
replaced the tree view with a simple sitemap, which has proved to be far more effective.
To show the rules of where content was to appear, we used a content model.