search

mozilla / science.mozilla.org

Making research collaborative, accessible, and usable
https://science.mozilla.org
Mozilla Public License 2.0
46 stars 49 forks source link

Copy for fellowship pages #194

Closed kristinashu closed 8 years ago

kristinashu commented 8 years ago

I will updated copy for the fellowship pages (https://redpen.io/p/eb9d7534bcf4dfcc17). I've copied what is on the current site into the copy doc so please edit away https://docs.google.com/a/mozilla.com/document/d/1k2Ds-iw4B_Sh5ae1areW1qfuLPtSqmgohtXYBkOi7r4/edit?usp=sharing

One suggestion is to try and avoid having a FAQ page. FAQ pages generally have poor usability because the content has no hierarchy. If we think someone will wonder "I live outside of the US, UK or Canada - am I eligible?" then we should put that in the Eligibility Criteria section instead.

Not too sure how is best to take this on? @acabunoc @kaythaney @auremoser @zee-moz @stephwright cc @hannahkane

hannahkane commented 8 years ago

+1 to eliminating the FAQ and instead working those into the other tabs. Let me know if I can help by offering some suggestions for how to do that. (Happy to do that, though I'm likely not the best person since I don't know what program elements have changed since last year.)

auremoser commented 8 years ago

I'm going to gently push back on this, feel free to veto me. FAQs are kind of a catch all for lots of material that is ancillary to core-content but maybe will save us a few individual email. I know they lack hierarchy but I think people expect that something like this will exist, and are comfortable scrolling for clarity. I feel like having all of FAQ caveats in the base content will make the application docs verbose and insecure in tone (like, including a clarification about why we're sorry you can't apply from outside the US/UK and Canada (first question in the FAQ) right after we list the requirement that you be "Currently working at a research institution in the US, UK or Canada." seems a bit redundant. An FAQ captures those redundancies in a different location which makes us seem considerate but not milquetoast in our assertions.

Perhaps we could just group the FAQ questions under themed headings similar to those in the core content (like "Eligibility Criteria" and "Stipends"...)? I'm happy to group them and eliminate those that are now obsolete. Also, maybe I'm not explaining myself well, and I'm sorry I didn't address this before, but if I had questions about content/necessary requests in the application docs, I'd probably look for an FAQ.

kaythaney commented 8 years ago

+1 to that. the info in the FAQ was also clearly laid out in the requirements last year. didn't keep us from getting tons of folks asking the same questions. :)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Aurelia Moser notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm going to gently push back on this, feel free to veto me. FAQs are kind of a catch all for lots of material that is ancillary to core-content but maybe will save us a few individual email. I know they lack hierarchy but I think people expect that something like this will exist, and are comfortable scrolling for clarity. I feel like having all of FAQ caveats in the base content will make the application docs verbose and insecure in tone (like, including a clarification about why we're sorry you can't apply from outside the US/UK and Canada (first question in the FAQ) right after we list the requirement that you be "Currently working at a research institution in the US, UK or Canada." seems a bit redundant. An FAQ captures those redundancies in a different location which makes us seem considerate but not milquetoast in our assertions.

Perhaps we could just group the FAQ questions under themed headings similar to those in the core content (like "Eligibility Criteria" and "Stipends"...)? I'm happy to group them and eliminate those that are now obsolete. Also, maybe I'm not explaining myself well, and I'm sorry I didn't address this before, but if I had questions about content/necessary requests in the application docs, I'd probably look for an FAQ.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/mozilla/science.mozilla.org/issues/194#issuecomment-212523743

@kaythaney http://twitter.com/kaythaney/ @MozillaScience http://twitter.com/mozillascience

kaythaney commented 8 years ago

also, just to flag, we're looking at broadening the call for year 2 beyond the US, UK and Canada, but are awaiting a meeting with ops/legal. that'll take a few weeks. @auremoser and i are working on updates to the text in the meantime.

don't let that hold you up - will be minor text tweaks. just flagging that confirmation on that is likely a few weeks out.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Kaitlin Thaney kaitlin.thaney@gmail.com wrote:

+1 to that. the info in the FAQ was also clearly laid out in the requirements last year. didn't keep us from getting tons of folks asking the same questions. :)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Aurelia Moser notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm going to gently push back on this, feel free to veto me. FAQs are kind of a catch all for lots of material that is ancillary to core-content but maybe will save us a few individual email. I know they lack hierarchy but I think people expect that something like this will exist, and are comfortable scrolling for clarity. I feel like having all of FAQ caveats in the base content will make the application docs verbose and insecure in tone (like, including a clarification about why we're sorry you can't apply from outside the US/UK and Canada (first question in the FAQ) right after we list the requirement that you be "Currently working at a research institution in the US, UK or Canada." seems a bit redundant. An FAQ captures those redundancies in a different location which makes us seem considerate but not milquetoast in our assertions.

Perhaps we could just group the FAQ questions under themed headings similar to those in the core content (like "Eligibility Criteria" and "Stipends"...)? I'm happy to group them and eliminate those that are now obsolete. Also, maybe I'm not explaining myself well, and I'm sorry I didn't address this before, but if I had questions about content/necessary requests in the application docs, I'd probably look for an FAQ.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/mozilla/science.mozilla.org/issues/194#issuecomment-212523743

@kaythaney http://twitter.com/kaythaney/ @MozillaScience http://twitter.com/mozillascience

@kaythaney http://twitter.com/kaythaney/ @MozillaScience http://twitter.com/mozillascience

stephwright commented 8 years ago

Another +1 from me for what Aure & KT said.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kaitlin Thaney notifications@github.com wrote:

+1 to that. the info in the FAQ was also clearly laid out in the requirements last year. didn't keep us from getting tons of folks asking the same questions. :)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Aurelia Moser notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm going to gently push back on this, feel free to veto me. FAQs are kind of a catch all for lots of material that is ancillary to core-content but maybe will save us a few individual email. I know they lack hierarchy but I think people expect that something like this will exist, and are comfortable scrolling for clarity. I feel like having all of FAQ caveats in the base content will make the application docs verbose and insecure in tone (like, including a clarification about why we're sorry you can't apply from outside the US/UK and Canada (first question in the FAQ) right after we list the requirement that you be "Currently working at a research institution in the US, UK or Canada." seems a bit redundant. An FAQ captures those redundancies in a different location which makes us seem considerate but not milquetoast in our assertions.

Perhaps we could just group the FAQ questions under themed headings similar to those in the core content (like "Eligibility Criteria" and "Stipends"...)? I'm happy to group them and eliminate those that are now obsolete. Also, maybe I'm not explaining myself well, and I'm sorry I didn't address this before, but if I had questions about content/necessary requests in the application docs, I'd probably look for an FAQ.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/mozilla/science.mozilla.org/issues/194#issuecomment-212523743

@kaythaney http://twitter.com/kaythaney/ @MozillaScience http://twitter.com/mozillascience

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/mozilla/science.mozilla.org/issues/194#issuecomment-212535826

Stephanie Wright

Open Data Training Lead, Mozilla Science Lab Twitter @shefw | GitHub @stephwright | Skype: stephanie_4504 ORCID: 0000-0003-3829-318X "The opposite of 'open' isn't 'closed'. The opposite of 'open' is 'broken'." ~ John Wilbanks

kristinashu commented 8 years ago

Sounds good, thanks everyone for weighing in. I'll add an FAQ tab to the mocks.

auremoser commented 8 years ago

thank you @kristinashu !

hannahkane commented 8 years ago

Are we good on this ticket, or do we need to finalize more copy?

kristinashu commented 8 years ago

Do we know the deadline date for applications?

kaythaney commented 8 years ago

Let's say July 15. :) (cc @auremoser)

sent on the move. apologies for typos.

On May 10, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Kristina notifications@github.com wrote:

Do we know the deadline date for applications?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

kristinashu commented 8 years ago

Thanks! Closing this ticket.