I think we assumed most people would go to the “Uses” section to find out how to use technology to “do something,” to achieve some goal, objective, purpose… and from there would be directed to specific tool(s) for “doing that thing,” “achieving that goal or objective” (see: record/edit/format audio).  I think we further assumed that people would only go to the “Tools” section if they wanted to learn more about a particular tool.  From there, they would find links to the “Uses” section showing how a given tool can be used (see: Audacity).  Throughout, we wanted to keep it as simple as possible, avoiding overly techie/edu-greek language, but maybe the navigation terms are too simple…

We hoped to be able to have a fairly complete list of all the ways to using technology for teaching and learning.  We came up with nearly 60 different ways of using technology which we then tried to organize into categories.  I see the case for combining “Data Collection and Analysis” with “Research.” I think coming up with a definitive taxonomy of technology uses is a daunting task…  I welcome more feedback in this area.  Difficult too has been finding ways to “label” technology uses in a way that “describes” the use succinctly enough that it can be discovered in a list…

Thanks again for feedback.

Thanks for the comments – the team will discuss these and continue to add content. Feel free to add additional comments at any time!

2. Library Collections: You bring the problem of having 11 entries on yourselves by confusing libraries and collections. To students, campus libraries are places to go to for specific materials or to study in specific locations. Collections are subsets of the information resources we have on hand, usually noted by subject and/or format (i.e. Vermont, Postcards, Flanders Ballads, etc). Rid yourselves of one or the other in this category, and don’t feel you have to be exhaustive with collections. Why, for instance, must we single out gov docs? The government is merely one publisher–albeit a large one–among many that offer materials on subjects in the general collection.

3. I’d like to see an “About Us” link on the left side that offers org info on LIS and the library. It’d be like the link we all use when we go to other library pages, as some of us do often.

I have a comment about the opening paragraph on the “Library Collections” page (I know – you’re not asking about that; too bad).

Currently it says:
“Our collection is particularly strong in languages to support our summer Language School programs. ”

The summer LS programs evolved out of an institutional focus on international studies/languages that predates the establishment of the LSs (well-established though they are). Yes, we get materials for the LSs that we might not get if they weren’t here, but… it’s kind of a chicken-and-egg thing. Regardless, I think it would be better to state something more inclusive of language teaching than just the summer LSs. One possibility:

“Our collection is particularly strong in languages to support Middlebury College’s focus on international and cross-cultural studies.”

On a related note, I don’t know what you intend for the center of the page, but I think we absolutely need a link for Reserves and ILL front and center on the main page. You have Borrowing on the side menu but not Reserves or ILL. I think the latter two are even more heavily sought – all 3 need to be on the front page.

As for Collections, I’m not satisfied with the arrangement. I completely agree that we should reduce the nesting. In fact I think we should reduce it even more. If I’m looking for special collections, I should be able to click on Collections and not have to click on a 2nd “Collections” – it should be right there on the page and I prefer to see all this info in the center of the page, not just in the sidebar menu. Why not simply expand out the hierarchy on the page itself so that users would see Main Library as a heading, and underneath that each collection listed, then below that Armstrong Science Library and highlight anything special like Map collection and so forth. I don’t think we need the middle of the main collections page devoted to a long general description in large print. I’d rather see the first part of the description you have in regular sized font with ..more (like users are accustomed to with blog posts) and then each library or collection listed and described similarly. Also get rid of the right side bar stuff at this level – its taking up real estate and forcing everything to have to be on subplages. You could put library hours and Ask a librarian in the left menu (but keep them in the right menu for the main Library page). That or make it part of a header that goes across the top page of all pages. I just hate having subpages crammed into tiny space.

Also, new users have no idea what Davison library is or William Tell. Spell it out like you did for Armstrong. Thus Davison (Breadloaf) library, and William Tell (Monterey) library. Brand New users still might not know what Breadloaf is but within a few weeks our new students, faculty and staff will have heard of Breadloaf, while you’d easily find seniors who have no clue what Davison is or William Tell.

I can explain all this better in person. Stop in!

In other words (in case the formatting gets screwed up in this post), to nest the specific collections (archives, etc.) under Main Library, which is where they actually live. (I know: “Dig” doesn’t really live anywhere, but the work is done mostly in Main).

It just seems a little weird to me to list a bunch of branches and then list “Collections” separately on the same level.

T