1. Visually compare seacoos.org to secoora.net to see if they look the same. Note items which appear in one and not the other. Do this while both logged in on both sites and when logged out on both sites.
  • There is a dotted line border surrounding the address for the NOAA Outreach Distribution Unit on the SEACOOS site, but not on the SECOORA site.
  • There are no subdividing lines between sections on SECOORA.
  1. Change all instances of "SEACOOS' to 'SECOORA'. Match case. Be consistent (secoora.org is usually in lower case. SECOORA the organization is usually all in lower case).
  • The page's copyright is 2005 to SEACOOS. I don't know if that should change or not.
  1. Look through the HTML of Page items for CSS. Make notes about inline CSS so we can move it to a CSS registry and change it to CSS classes. Make notes about CSS classes in tag attributes because those classes are probably already registered on seacoos.org and haven't been moved over to secoora.org. Sometimes visual elements missing from pages (like divider lines) are because you don't have the CSS yet to display them on secoora.org
  2. Make note of all the places where you see headers on a page which are text as graphic images. This is not good web accessibility, although it looks good. We have to decide:
    1. Whether to keep them
    2. Whether to keep the original graphic font and color
    3. Whether to regenerate them all in a standard size (I think some of them might be 20px tall while others are 26 px tall)
    4. If not keeping them as graphics, how to replace them with what style of heading tag.
    5. If keeping them, whether to automatically generate them from metadata on special content types.
  3. References to Katie Greganti as a contact only should be replaced with Margaret Olsen (olsen@uga.edu). If a location for the contact is required use University of Georgia Marine Extension Service (UGA MAREX). Do not replace Katie as an author or contributor where she is listed as such.
  4. Check that all table of contents links at the top of the page work. Make notes of where #anchors from the table of contents do not have "back to top" links.
  5. Note which presentations are iframes with that funny pagination control widget (see this page for an example). That was created with some crusty old software. We're going to redo those with Open Office.
  6. Note which links to content (other than the ones at the top of the page which say things like "Download this activity as an Adobe PDF") follow only to a non-web file to download (like a PDF, a PowerPoint?, a Word Document, etc.). We are going to web-ify those.
  7. Note any links to offsite content which no longer work.
  8. Note any images which appear pilfered from offsite content (that is, you don't see them reproduced within our original content).
  9. Note any content items (Pages, Files, Images) which do not have Contributors or Rights. We need to figure out how to get those in good shape.
  10. Note any Page content items without Descriptions. We may want to provide them where they don't mess with the page layout in unacceptable ways. Where they would mess with the page layout, I may create a new content type which doesn't display the description on the page view. Not sure. But I think Page items in genereal need descriptions.
  11. Note any File or Image items which do have Title or Description metadata. We might want to get rid of it. It only messes up searches.
  12. Make sure all Pages items have a format of HTML. This is easy to overlook because structured text or restructued text with HTML embedded will still render as HTML. This may seem like a nit. But it makes life hard for programmers who are searching the portal catalog for all Pages with just HTML or other content formats.
  13. Please feel free to check with Chris about other things you think ought to be on this list. We can always add more. The important thing is to have a basis for us to achieve both consistency, a good look, and a layout which might be translated into new content types.
  14. Please make a note of anything you see that you feel could be done better, from the wording of copy and grammar to just how something looks on the page to ergonomic factors. Some of you have graphic talent beyond what we normally have at our disposal.