Get documents about "firms-feedback
Document Sample
Feedback summary table - first review round PRINT
Issues Comments Partner FIGIS Comments
We, however, disagree with his suggestion 3 to not include reference to FIGIS in the
introductory page of the FIRMS homepage. In addition, we found a few typos, e.g. on the
introductory (home) page under “Our Mission” it should say “.…on the global monitoring
text to be edited in
1 and management of fishery marine resources” (FIRMS also includes submission of NAFO we took action as recommended
home
management information). Under “Our Partnership”, we suggest to start with “FIRMS
draws together….”. Finally, in the last line of the same paragraph, we think it would be
more correct to say “…participates in the development…”
NAFO
2 organigram change in FIRMS Components CCSBT we took action as recommended
IATTC
menu button for LOGIN NAFO
we strongly believe that there should be no link on this site for access to the partners'
side of the system. The partners' access should be accomplished via a separate, non- we cannot afford to maintain two distinct web-sites, therefore we propose to have a
published, site, that is not apparent to the public. Too, we believe that the public site IATTC “members area” top level menu item which will contain all information relevant to FIRMS
should include a link for meta-data. partners only, and will be visible to FIRMS partners only after login. We have two options for
the login process, but will maintain open these two options until we further work on data
editing scenarios:
Option 1: the login (user name and password) button is part of the left banner. The
3 members “members area” menu item becomes visible to registered user with all its sub-levels once
they have logged in. Drawback of this solution: the login button is visible to all and this may
Partners Only (new suggested menu): I like the idea of having a completely separate confuse general public users.
menu for items that are only accessible to partners. This way there is absolutely no
CCSBT Option 2: the “members area” menu item is visible to all but sub-levels remain invisible, and
confusion from Partners or developers as to which items are NOT in the public domain. the login (user name and password) button is triggered when user clicks on this menu item.
Obviously, all information and data loading/editing routines would be placed here. User registers and then has access to “members area” sub-levels menu items.
Metadata menu item: see answer in row 7
This points deserves a substantial response:
In the description of Partners under the “About” menu, we see that you link to “Fact
Sheets” for each partner. We have two problems with that: (1) The words “Fact Sheets” Background
are already used in the context of the FIRMS information on stocks and this alternative
use of the same term on the same site can be very confusing. (2) At the last Steering The Paragraph 7b of the FIRMS SC2 report "Review of FIRMS web site"
Committee FIRMS Partners agreed that links would be only provided to the original ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/FIGIS_FIRMS/2005/report.pdf says that the proposed link to
NAFO
websites of the partner organizations and not to the FAO summary descriptions. Instead, harmonised summary descriptions of institutions should be maintained only if there are
it was proposed that the short descriptions on the page itself be just a little bit more mechanisms assuring that information contained in these fact sheets reflect the up-to-date
comprehensive. (NAFO will send its updated text for this purpose shortly. Please, also RFB situation.
note that our web address has changed two 2 years ago and is www.nafo.int.)
Some Partners said their fact sheets would contain short and stable information such as
maps of competence areas and link to their web site ..."
Finally, the decision made was: "It was agreed that the above were preliminary comments
and that the Secretariat will make this prototype web-site available to the partners for review
and will coordinate/moderate discussions through Emails and Forum concerning the
validation of the Web site before its publication; ..."
Summary of FIRMS partners concerns
i) the summary descriptions of the RFB should be made using the RFB's own language,
implying that these descriptions are validated before publication by the concerned RFB,
ii) there should be no discrepancy between the information contained in the summary and
the information contained in the RFB site (eg about membership), which implies an ability to
maintain the information up-to-date, and
iii) one should avoid duplication of work
4 About FIRMS
Views expressed by FAO/FIPL, the current data owner of these summary descriptions
FIPL has developed in 1999 a portal to RFBs information giving way to summary
harmonised summary descriptions of institutions should be maintained only if there are
mechanisms assuring that information contained in these fact sheets reflect the up-to-date
RFB situation.
Some Partners said their fact sheets would contain short and stable information such as
maps of competence areas and link to their web site ..."
Finally, the decision made was: "It was agreed that the above were preliminary comments
and that the Secretariat will make this prototype web-site available to the partners for review
and will coordinate/moderate discussions through Emails and Forum concerning the
I am interested in this understanding you have on this point, as in my discussion with
validation of the Web site before its publication; ..."
Robin on this point, my understanding was that of Barbara's. This has been a point we
have consistently raised with FAO as something we desired to control. By validation of IATTC
Summary of FIRMS partners concerns
the website, we will see that the FAO "summary" on the site is in fact not a summary but
i) the summary descriptions of the RFB should be made using the RFB's own language,
our language.
implying that these descriptions are validated before publication by the concerned RFB,
ii) there should be no discrepancy between the information contained in the summary and
the information contained in the RFB site (eg about membership), which implies an ability to
maintain the information up-to-date, and
iii) one should avoid duplication of work
4 About FIRMS
Views expressed by FAO/FIPL, the current data owner of these summary descriptions
FIPL has developed in 1999 a portal to RFBs information giving way to summary
descriptions of about 40 RFBs worldwide. Because during the past few years FI
experienced some difficulties with ensuring the most up-to-date information about RFBs, a
move was made towards drawing direct links to RFBs web-sites when existing, thus
removing from the site the corresponding summary descriptions.
The new FIPL leadership believes in the value of RFBs summary descriptions for users
willing to grasp an overview of worldwide Regional Fishery Bodies. FIPL
wants the RFB web-site within the FI web-site, as visible as possible, and as updated as
I agree with Barbara's point and Michael's understanding. I don't recall that possible. This site should provide summary descriptions for all RFBs, together with direct
"comprehensiveness" of the summary descriptions of Partners was the issue discussed links to the existing RFB web-sites.
ICCAT
during the FSC meeting. Instead, the issue was primarily one of validation and,
secondarily, of avoiding duplication of work. Understanding that the FIPL RFB portal exists within the FAO web-site, what are the
possible alternatives in the framework of the FIRMS development?
1. No link is drawn to these summary descriptions, and FIPL’s RFB portal lives its own life
2. The RFB summary descriptions become part of the FIRMS management systems module
(RFBs constitute themselves, or are parts of regional management systems). Becoming de
facto under the full maintenance responsibility of the FIRMS partners, the information
contained can be recycled and presented in the FIPL RFB portal.
3. Summary descriptions are primarily maintained as part of the FIPL RFB portal, and links
are drawn from FIRMS to these summary descriptions. FIRMS partners concerns are
addressed by FIPL, with the following possible measures:
3.1 restrict as far as possible these summary descriptions to very static type of information,
such as Legal foundations, Main functions, Objectives, Area of competence (+map),
Institutional structure, language used. Exclude Meetings, Events and News, and
as recommended, “State of exploitation summary” has been changed to “Stock status
summary”. We also proposed to change “New report” into “New data” but will appear only
when the system will be in production with new data. Finally, other summaries such as
“Exploitation summaries” may effectively be added later.
It must be stressed that through this scenario of “Stock status summary”, our intention was
State of to evaluate Partners reactions on a Pre-cooked report dealing with a sensitive matter
change in Stock Status Summaries and eventually add "Exploitation summaries" for non
5 exploitation NAFO according to FSC discussions. These discussions stressed the fact that integrity of Status
assessment information
summary and trends statements must be maintained, and that due to lack of homogeneity between
institutions it may be misleading to mix-up within a user defined list state and trends
statements across different institutions. Considering these constraints, we offer in this
scenario only a possibility to display lists of statements by institution. Further comments
welcomed.
as recommended, Inventory of marine resources and fisheries was changed to Partners
Inventory of Marine contributions. We believe that there is room for a “Partners contribution” menu item under
6 Resource and change into "Partners Contributions" NAFO About FIRMS for the general public, and another “Partners contribution status” under the
Fisheries “members area” menu item. This later will focus more on the progress, while the former is
rather seen as a summary of the Data base content for general public use.
Main Menus Sub-Menus
Home
About Governance
Partners
FIRMS Concepts and Definitions
Information and Data
Fact Sheets
Stock Status Summaries
Exploitation Summaries (future sub-item)
Publications
Partner Contributions
NAFO
Members (* The sub-menu items would be hidden from the public and only available
when the password is entered)
Data Input
Mock-Ups
Documents
Meetings
Training
Software Development
Other We hope that the new menu structure and the terms used constitute a good compromise of
Recent Developments all remarks made, noting that there were different view points on certain aspects, and some
Contacts misinterpretations of our original intentions due to imprecise labelling. We do think that it is
Links important to present at the top level a Metadata menu item including “concepts and
definitions” on one hand, and “Data Collections” (reflecting content of Partners annex 2) on
the other hand. We have maintained for the General public the “Information resources”
menu item including Meetings, Publications and Related links since we do think these are
relevant to the general public. We also think that a “Other” menu is not compatible with a
friendly navigation, and that it is important to present “Contacts” up-front.
Indeed, we encourage you to review the New menu architecture, with the following
guidance:
7 Menu proposal “Fisheries data” is the title finally proposed for the place where FIRMS data content can be
found. We have omitted the term information in this title to avoid confusion with the other
menu item “information resources”. This menu will start being populated when data
contributions will actually start. The very first step will present the inventory tree browser (as
suggested at the bottom of the Mock-ups/Advanced fact sheets search” page), then will
include direct links to the few prime fact sheets contributed (as suggested in the “mock-
ups/Search fact sheet” page), and will progressively evolve towards the advanced search
We hope that the new menu structure and the terms used constitute a good compromise of
all remarks made, noting that there were different view points on certain aspects, and some
misinterpretations of our original intentions due to imprecise labelling. We do think that it is
important to present at the top level a Metadata menu item including “concepts and
definitions” on one hand, and “Data Collections” (reflecting content of Partners annex 2) on
the other hand. We have maintained for the General public the “Information resources”
menu item including Meetings, Publications and Related links since we do think these are
relevant to the general public. We also think that a “Other” menu is not compatible with a
friendly navigation, and that it is important to present “Contacts” up-front.
Indeed, we encourage you to review the New menu architecture, with the following
guidance:
7 Menu proposal “Fisheries data” is the title finally proposed for the place where FIRMS data content can be
found. We have omitted the term information in this title to avoid confusion with the other
menu item “information resources”. This menu will start being populated when data
contributions will actually start. The very first step will present the inventory tree browser (as
suggested at the bottom of the Mock-ups/Advanced fact sheets search” page), then will
include direct links to the few prime fact sheets contributed (as suggested in the “mock-
ups/Search fact sheet” page), and will progressively evolve towards the advanced search
fact sheet (as suggested in the “Mock-ups/Advanced fact sheets search” page).
In the “members area” we have distinguished three main sub-menus: “data input” and “mock-
ups” as suggested, together with “activities“ where one finds “Training”, “Software
####################################################################### CCSBT development”, and the “old case studies” (the later will be dismantled when this reference is
no more needed). We could probably add a link to the XML schema (see the xml schema
page from http://193.43.36.85:8181/fi/figis/firms_test/firms_fs_gatewaypage.html )"
we do not have a specific format for the menubar layout at this time, however, we strongly
believe that there should be no link on this site for access to the partners' side of the
system. The partners' access should be accomplished via a separate, non-published, IATTC
site, that is not apparent to the public. Too, we believe that the public site should include
a link for meta-data.
the view details button referred to at "Group results per domain and view a sample
Detailed Page by clicking on the red "View Details" button " was not visible when the
The search and display results mock-up pages were revised with a concern of simplification
page loaded. All features should be tested and operational before release. It is not clear
and of layout harmonisation (please click on red buttons to follow query/results scenarios).
quick search result on this page that the links for additional information are the red numbers in the box
8 IATTC We do not adhere to the idea of Links to be underscored since they are not friendly for print
list labeled "Results per domain." This serves to highlight a point for standard formatting:
version and from a lay out consideration view point. Red buttons will not remain in the live
we recommend all links be underscored, including those within text. At the present time,
application, Red is just used in the mock-ups to facilitate your exploration of the scenarios.
this is not the case, as links appear of different color, sometimes bold, sometimes not.
state of
following expansion points within text "<+ more]" , when the next action is to close the
9 exploitation IATTC modified as recommended
text, should it not say "less"?
summary
we continue to request and would like to see a Pacific-centered map for Pacific
this requirement is taken into account, as reflected in the CCSBT “Southern Bluefin Tuna”
10 map resources. We are concerned that this point remains unaddressed and a potential for IATTC
example fact sheet
delay in implementation.
Remove this link. The information that is displayed for this link is of no use to the public CCSBT as recommended, this link will not appear on the general public web-site. It will however be
11 About this site
nor to FIRMS partners. IATTC visible to FIRMS partners once logged in
CCSBT
Fisheries News &
we agree that this should not appear in this format - we would prefer a simple
12 Events & presentation of news, events and publications have been improved
hoverbutton link labeled "news" in the menu bar IATTC
Publications
remove "powered by FIGIS" CCSBT
the “powered by FIGIS technology” button is maintained in minimal fonts at the bottom of
each FIRMS page. There are various reasons for it: first in a world of distributed information
system, it’s becoming part of our policy to provide Credit to the system powering a page;
Powered by figis If “Powered by FIGIS” is on the bottom of the home page, I don’t thing we need “FIRMS second this reference to FIGIS should constitute a benchmark, the stamp of an information
13
technology system is part of the Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS)” in the text for “The IATTC management concept ensuring highest possible quality, compliance to standards, and
system”. streamlining; from this clickable label, it is proposed to link to the FIGIS framework
description web-site, instead of the FIGIS web-site which as such will disappear to become
part of the broadened FI web-site.
When I clicked on these, an empty page came up with the Data menu selected.
Also:
I think there should be an “Icon” for a list of fact sheets (essentially a fast link to the same
page used by your menu “Activities/Case studies”) in addition to the “Icon” you have for
the facts sheet search. At the present time, with a small number of fact sheets, it is much
"Resource status easier to peruse the entire list of fact sheets than do a search for fact sheets. CCSBT
report" & "Fact The “Icon” for “Resource Status Reports” should be renamed to “Resource Status
these recommendations will be followed, as reflected in the “mock-up / search fact sheets”
14 sheet search", Summaries”. With the present wording (i.e. “Reports”), I initially assumed that these were
menu item provided for review.
gateway point in separate reports from the fact sheets on the state of the resources. However, these are
home simply extracts from the fact sheets and therefore should be referred to as extracts or
summaries to prevent confusion.
n/a IATTC
Recommendation taken into account, as per response provided in comment 8. However
we found the pages too crowded and written as text layout. perhaps a more web-like with regard comments made with reference to the “ICES mock-up of State of Exploitation
feel and appearance would be achieved with a drill-down approach that emphasizes lists summary”, we must again stress our response to comment 5, and more particularly the fact
comments on with single level topics on screen at one time, versus multi-level topics/subject displays that i) integrity of Status and trends statements must be maintained (you can notice that we
15 IATTC
results page layout mixed. An example of the mixed is given in the layout of the ICES mock-up of State of propose to cut the text after a certain number of characters which we can reduce or
Exploitation Summary, which could be laid out in the suggested approach in what we increase, and associate it with an expand button), and ii) that this list is meant to be a final
think a more visually oriented manner suitable for the web as compared to text media. (printable) product (with no collapse of text for the print format) and not at all a search list.
Further comments still welcomed.
web navigation CCSBT
16 links to pages external to firms should open in new windows modified as recommended
issues IATTC
