Input Needed - Structure of new website

As we get closer and closer to getting a site design we are all happy with it's time to start thinking about the structure of the new site.

The last site had a structure based on five top-level sections, "Community", "articles", "Clubs", "Observers" and "Resources". These sections never really got filled and TBH I don't think that structure worked out well at all. It does not represent the way IFAS has evolved or indeed the way the site has evolved.

What I'm looking for now is ideas and guidance on the way the new site should be structured.

Cheers folks,

Bart.

Well I believe we have to play to our strengths. The direct links to ILPAC, Arcturus, and the AOP are things that have been suggested before. Perhaps we could draw more attention to the Observing Challenges pages as well. Another thing that we certainly should consider, I think, is a gallery for people to organise their pictures.

The last site had a structure based on five top-level sections, "Community", "articles", "Clubs", "Observers" and "Resources". These sections never really got filled and TBH I don't think that structure worked out well at all. It does not represent the way IFAS has evolved or indeed the way the site has evolved.

What I'm looking for now is ideas and guidance on the way the new site should be structured.

I think there are several reasons the secrions never got filled. The main problem being that someone had to work out the text with other folks, then have Bart add it to the site. Changing the pages was an equally alborious process.

The solution to maintaining these sections is with a decent CMS or ideally a wiki. That was registered users can esily fill in the site content. Whether its with observing reports, club details, whatever. We will need to work on structure a bit but at least we'll have content to work with.

First I come at this from a "what do I want, how would it be useful to me." sort of approach

Next What is IFAS and what is it for, what does it do – how are they useful for/to me?

Next - What is your strategic advantage?

Who ever suggested the idea of a wiki - that is good - more than good its - inspired.
The Internet is loaded with sites that contain all the information I could ever want. So you can't compete on that front (yet!). Everything channeled thought a single point is a bottleneck that can never compete or match an 'everyone contributing' model. Put up a wiki and collectively write the 'Great Book of Irish Astronomy'

The boards are the best feature of the current site put some focus on that.

How about more prominent, formal lists of links.

Directories - phone/web for equipment, people, places, goodies, help.

Proper equipment reviews (I own this its great/good/junk etc but structured )

I believe that the content should probably drive the design rather than the design driving the content. Currently there are many shallow links that are there just because it seemed like a good idea to have them but somehow they never got filled.

Play to your strengths tell me all about IFAS past present and future where are we heading, what is our history, bore me with press releases and plans. What legacy will we leave to history, who are we lobbying and about what.

How about a standard template that all affiliates can be presented through. Show me standard information about each club. Size, membership, equipment, interests, specialties, research, publications, resourses, strengths, plans yadda yadda yadda.

How are you different? How are you different? How are you different?

Time up must go.

Apologies for the stream of consciousness style.

fc

OK, I have to say I really like what I'm hearing here.

Especially the whole content driven approach etc. This is exactly what I was hopping would be asked for.

As I see it the site should have three distinct facets:
1) About IFAS - Constitution, committee, member clubs ......
2) Community - Boards, blogs, image galleries ......
3) Resolurces - Articles (CMS or Wiki, need to have a good think about that), links, reviews .........


Do people agree with that sumamry?

Bart - that list looks good to me. Well summarised. Good job.

Dave