Make UX Guide "resource" titles consistent and easy to recognize in search results

[MelissaBraxton]

The resources on the UX Guide have different patterns to their titles, which makes them hard to identify in search results. Establish a pattern to identify pages as resources, and potentially the type of resource (template, example).

Note: There are also efforts to rewrite specific resources which might result in pages being removed

acceptance criteria

• [ ] pattern for naming resources is defined and documented in the Guides GitHub
• [x] Visible resources on the UX guide follow this pattern
• [ ] all UX guide resources are in the correct place in the site architecture (/resources) with a visible left navigation and old links redirect

tasks

• [x] propose naming conventions for resources
• [x] share with @bpdesigns for approval
• [x] update page titles and page text in the site that references these pages
• [ ] move pages to /resources and create a redirect from the old urls to new ones

background This original issue was following up on a recommendation from analytics research done last year and summarized in this deck.

[bpdesigns]

@claireb-gsa do you have thoughts on expanding or changing this ticket considering IA discussions we're having?

[claireb-gsa]

Yeah - I think this fits in nicely with the more general restructuring we're talking about. @bpdesigns

There are sort of two issues here:

• naming of the resources (these are all over the place)
• naming of the page content

Since we're talking about organizing/moving/fixing the resources, I think the page names could be dealt with as a part of that update - restructuring the resource page, doing consistent titles, and then making sure they're all living under /resources.

The page content titles (Stay lean, plan, do) may end up changing as we split apart that content into smaller pieces - so renaming them in their current structure probably isn't worth it.

I think we can keep this ticket for traceability, but maybe update it to be specific to the resources renaming, and link it to the other shifts that need to happen to clean that area up?

[bpdesigns]

@claireb-gsa feel free to update the ticket as it makes sense. TY!

[claireb-gsa]

Updated ticket!

For posterity, removed task

• [ ] draft new titles for the Stay lean, Do, Plan pages that make it easy to understand what content exists on these pages

That title work should happen as a part of the reorg of content more generally.

[alia-salim]

Hi, @bpdesigns -- and FYI, @claireb-gsa :

I did a lot of meandering through general UX guide content and issues over the past week, mostly as a learning exercise for myself. My notes on that process are here if you're interested, but not necessary to read.

As for this ticket, specifically, here are my suggestions:

Other work around the UX guide architecture and content strategy (#580) may ultimately affect the definition of a “resource” and where this content is located in the site architecture. Given that, I suggest that for now, page title changes address only cosmetic inconsistencies (e.g., "template" vs. "[Template]").

For now, what content should be identified in page titles as “resources”?

Proposal: Only the pages categorized as “guide resources” in Claire’s existing content audit.

For now, within the “resource” content type, should there be subtypes? (e.g., email templates, document templates, checklists, examples)

Proposal: No. The number of pages (~10) is not high enough to warrant the additional complexity of subtypes.

For now, what should be the naming convention to indicate the “resource” content type in page titles?

Proposal:

Example: [Name of resource]

• Proposing “example” rather than “template” because the word can be accurately applied to a broader range of content, and because search volume for “example” is significantly higher (generally speaking—I have not looked at site analytics for 18f.gov specifically).
• Proposing “example” at the beginning rather than end of the title, because this would be consistent with existing guidance on hierarchy for titles (specific > general).
• Proposing “example” rather than, e.g., “UX example” or other potentially more SEO-friendly labels because, based on discussion with Claire, it seems questions about the guide’s overall architecture and goals should be resolved before attempting to optimize titles for search.

Let me know if those suggestions makes sense to you, or if not, what aspects I should revisit. Thanks!

[alia-salim]

Moving this to "in review" based on conversation about statuses in retro yesterday. I'm looking for some feedback from @claireb-gsa (see comments on this doc); when that's resolved I'll tag Ben in again.

[claireb-gsa]

@alia-salim I replied to the comment in the doc - and left other random thoughts. Decision is in your court, and then I think we're good to proceed

[alia-salim]

@claireb-gsa thank you! @bpdesigns, based on Claire's feedback, I changed the label in my suggested title format from "example" to "resource" and submitted a pull request to change the titles of the 12 affected guide pages.

(It's my first try at using GitHub Desktop, so please let me if there are things I've done incorrectly/not the way you prefer, even if it's minor details!)

[bpdesigns]

@alia-salim this should be good to go! Thank you. Please move this to done.

[alia-salim]

I've marked this "done" with some acceptance criteria open.

all UX guide resources are in the correct place in the site architecture (/resources) with a visible left navigation and old links redirect

This work is now reflected in #583

pattern for naming resources is defined and documented in the Guides GitHub`

There is currently no Wiki for the new, centralized guides repo. Per Claire, one may be created in the future, but for now, documenting the naming convention in this ticket is OK. Resources in the UX guide should be named/labeled like this:

Resource: [Name of resource]

e.g. "Resource: Stakeholder interview script"

[bpdesigns]

TY!