Review Community page content/structure with Mike

[ailsaleen]

How to separate organisations:

• by Considering / Adopting / Adopted and/or by type:
• Commissioning a directory (e.g. councils)
• Supplying directory software and API
• Consuming an Open Referral compliant API
• Maintaining service data

[chiayingt]

@MikeThacker1 Can I ask for your feedback about the structure that who's using ORUK page? There is a discussion around pointing separate suppliers and organisations (eg. councils), but the suppliers would probably find it strange that they're not listed under the 'adopted' list instead.
https://www.figma.com/proto/2xrZWgoxb0vgylFFbimESB/ORUK-page-designs?node-id=103%3A197&viewport=-2227%2C246%2C0.2105993926525116&scaling=min-zoom&page-id=0%3A1

[MikeThacker1]

@chiayingt I think the way organisations are split on that page is a bit strange. The case study form splits "Type of organisation" into these headings which I recommend we match on that page:

• Commissioning a directory of services
• Supplying directory software and API
• Consuming an Open Referral compliant API
• Maintaining service data

Additionally there are "stakeholders" who support the standard but are not adopting it

I would put organisations under headings like this (subject to each organisation's consent and avoiding duplication between headings):

• Stakeholders -- Adur and Worthing -- Essex CC -- LGA -- MHCLG
• Commissioning a directory of services -- Blackburn with Darwen -- Bristol -- Buckinghamshire -- CAST -- Elmbridge -- Hull -- Kingston -- Lancashire and South Cumbria ICS -- Leeds -- North Yorkshire
• Supplying directory software and API -- Ayup -- FutureGov -- Placecube -- Public Partnerships Limited (apparently PCG has just changed its name to this)
• Consuming an Open Referral compliant API -- Doc&Tee -- VidaVia
• Maintaining service data -- Wellaware

I would show logos for all of these that authorise it.

TMy suggested list does not split the ones who have developed from the ones who are developing - which I think is a sensible approach for this page as opposed to the dashboard.

Famiio attends lots of meetings and seeks lots of public funding but I have seen no sign of them committing to adopt the Standard so far.

Let me know if you want a verbal chat about this.

[chiayingt]

Hi @MikeThacker1 As we discussed, this is the latest layout with logo, let me know if any comment on it. Thank you Also, Few question:

1. can I ask where I can validate the right number on this current list? (should it be same number of organisations we display in the page below)

   

2. Any organisation have not approved to put their logo yet? do you have the logo file of Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care System ? (I can't find out from internet)

[chiayingt]

@annhelen Can you take a look about content as well? Any feedback is welcomed. Thanks!

[MikeThacker1]

@chiayingt the page looks good

1. can I ask where I can validate the right number on this current list? (should it be same number of organisations we display in the page below)

No. It's the number that select the corresponding radio button in this online form.

@ailsaleen can you give us access to the Sheet into which responses go AND advise where the organisations of people answering the same questions by email or other means are?

2.Any organisation have not approved to put their logo yet? do you have the logo file of Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care System ? (I can't find out from internet)

We converted this via Slack (sorry I'm behind on email). I (or Snook) can confirm we have permission when the page is complete in beta. Ian Singleton has promised a Lancs & South Cumbria logo but I think it's the one at the top left of this page