Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
  1. Notes and matters arising from previous meeting (see 21-02-10)

    1. StoryMap.js

      1. A student worker (Grayce) had made a start on creating a StoryMap, and made good progress. This had been shared with the Group just ahead of the meeting for initial feedback. Some first impressions were:

        1. It looks great! Most of the design is using options that StoryMap provides. Some adjustment to contrast was identified as an area to explore.

        2. It was recognised that having an image associated with each site would be good, and these are being dug out.

        3. Presentation of the BL examples needs to avoid them all landing on the same place.

        4. It would be good to include a link to the Samvera website somewhere.

      2. All are asked to review further in their own time and feed back to Charlotte.

    2. Case studies / user profiles

      1. Almost all the people contacted to provide a case study/user profile had agreed to do so, in accordance with different work schedules and time pressures.

    3. Metadata reach out

      1. Chris is developing initial ideas for discussion.

    4. Code4Lib sponsorship

      1. Steering’s agenda had not enabled this to be given consideration, so Heather is following up.

  2. Social media use

    1. Social media use has been limited with Samvera’s communications, primarily because of the time commitment for ongoing messaging. Heather is looking at a minimal practical engagement, recognising that social media channels are not those that the audiences we are reaching out to would primarily use.

    2. Notwithstanding this, Heather is looking at developing the blog to support key news and developments. Twitter could be used as need be, albeit it is recognised that its greatest use and value is at events.

    3. Could we consider re-tweeting what Partners put out about their repositories? Querying how Partners use social media themselves in that context could be covered at the Virtual Partners Meeting in April.

  3. Website review --no need!

    1. The details of the website review carried out in early 2020 had been shared for information. The concerns raised had been due to old pages in WordPress still being viewable when editing, so the need was not as immediate as was first thought.

    2. It was agreed that carrying out an annual review over the summer months would be helpful to keep avoid out of date information being presented.