1. RUSA Website Review Task Force Questionnaire Results

2. Words to Describe Website Currently straightforward text-heavy Crowded Labyrinthine Stale Busy Oversharing RUSA Reference User Services administrative operational boilerplate outdated busy ugly Sections Committees Guidelines Want informative helpful portal Informative Intuitive Useful Fresh Professional Balanced dynamic useful current informative reference clear education advocacy committee work

3. Audience Answer123456Avg Response Non RUSA Members0204013.71 Active RUSA Members (volunteers / does committee work / etc) 2212002.14 Non Active RUSA Members (not currently volunteering) 0240103 Graduate Students0100604.7 Reference and User Services Professionals 4021002 Other1000065.3

4. What would a successful redesign look like? I am not sure A successful redesign will clearly highlight who RUSA is, our role within ALA, what we do as a division and what each section does, provide a login for members to get to added content, and showcase certain events and other news. A redesign will help to streamline RUSA content among all of the sections More updated look. Pictures of RUSA It would be successful if reference and user services professionals (RUSA members and non- members) visited the site regularly for useful information to help them in their jobs. The administrative stuff for active members is important too and should be easy to find, but the site shouldn't just be for active members. One with clear calls to action for users who are unfamiliar with RUSA. Ease of locating needed information. Highlighting RUSA's strengths--guidelines, awards, etc. The fewest number of pages realistically possible--a very streamlined website.

5. Risk RUSA is large with different sections that each have different interests and needs. This could make it difficult to design a streamlined site that fits everyone's needs. The RUSA conundrum is that its major strength is also a major challenge-- RUSA doesn't have a niche but instead serves all types of libraries, all types of librarians, all types of reference, and all types of library services. Trying to capture all of this in a web site makes it that much harder. The aspect of the RUSA culture that prompts us to ask this type of question. Let's be confident in our intelligence and abilities, and not fail. RUSA website has to conform to ALA website standards We have a complex organizational structure which could easily make the design too complicated. trying to appease everyone It's a large organization with often competing goals.

6. Websites We Like I think we should look at other Association sites to get a sense of what other groups are doing. There are sites like these: http://www.accrinet.com/blog/2014/08/26/default/10-best-association- web-designs-of-2014/ I like sites that are clean and clear. http://www.gia.edu/ < Pretty pictures, nice layout, draw you in, gives anecdotes about the benefits of being involved in coursework/activities. A lot of libraries are going for a minimalist design to the front end of their websites, with a very simple, streamlined look. I don't know what usability testing has revealed about how well these sites work, but it does at least make for a cleaner and less confusing presentation. Here are two examples: http://hcl.harvard.edu/ and http://library.tulane.edu/.http://library.tulane.edu/ websites that utilize a " less is more " approach.

7. Features It would be great to include dynamic content (such as a news feed) and more images. Cohesive overview of RUSA and its sections and how they all fit together. I think the web site itself should be an information portal, not a work tool, so the various committee pages should be behind a login and not cluttering up the site. The site should serve as a marketing tool for RUSA and the sections and highlight any educational materials that are produced. Need to streamline blog, facebook, twitter, etc. and get everything synced up so that people can easily connect with and follow us. Clear navigation aids should show user where they are in site and how it connects to the rest of the site (whether through breadcrumbs, etc.) More descriptive terminology, e.g. "Publications & Products" to me implies "Monographs and Swag," and in reality neither is true. For RUSA leaders we need easy access to tools such as committee rosters, but they don't need to be front and center, just easy to find. Another must have is content that drives non-RUSA members to visit the site. (Not sure what that is). We would first have to glean what the most important pages are on the site and make those stand out or be easy to access. A functioning search box

8. Not on the Site Just because we can put a button on a page that allows us to cite and share it via ten different social media outlets doesn't mean that we should. Multiple terms for similar content (Publications & Products/Communications, Working With RUSA/Join RUSA/Volunteer with RUSA/Join & Support RUSA/GiveRUSA, Contact RUSA/Feedback, etc.) should not be on the site. None of the links should take you directly to an ALA login site without warning or explanation (like the Give RUSA button) Dated content. Also the " Share This Page " boxes under the leftnav. Not all of our stuff is so awesome that we need to #overshare. Too much clutter ! Not everything needs to be on the home page. least visited items - or pages that would be better served in ALAConnect Not a lot of content below the fold on the main site.

9. Goverenance I am not sure Transparent but not too much hierarchy. One committee with representatives appointed from each section, not a RUSA committee plus each section's committee with a representative serving on both the section and RUSA committee. Someone from within the RUSA office needs to be ultimately responsible for the whole site--it is too big to manage for a committee of volunteers. Sorry, I don't understand the wording of this question. Not sure about governance but I think we should have regular usability testing. I don't currently know what the governance is. I do appreciate seeing links that allow a user to report broken links, etc. Or a link asking whether or not the page is helpful. It crowd-sources the maintenance of a page. I assume that the governance currently provides each section with some autonomy regarding their sections, but not the main RUSA site as a whole. This is often a problem where the person maintaining the site does not know all the content but those who do know the content do not maintain the site. Thus out-of-date content. I'd have to think about this more. No opinions yet. Interested to hear what others think.