Overview Map Diagram

"To understand which area these suggestions have been made about, then please take a few minutes to review the 'Overview Diagram'  mind map from the link below."

Click to view map diagram



Could have been better produced. Font tiny and lots of space which could have been better used. For those of us without an A3 printer it is difficult to review. No colour code/explanation.

Thanks for taking the time to

Thanks for taking the time to comment Fran.
I appreciate it may not suit everyone, but the actual intention was to make sure all the issues had a 'place' on a single page/pane.
I hadn't expected anyone to try to print it TBH. As a basic PDF is is accessible in most browsers and the user can hopefully zoom and scroll.
Each of the main 'legs' does have its own colour and each 'leg' has a category. Apologies if it wasn't clear enough.
Not sure if you attended the 'fringe' launch event on Tuesday 28th October. There should be a recording available soon. That might provide some further context.
The layout is perhaps just a function of the software that was used to create it.
If you know of a tool that would have done a better job in your opinion I would be interested to learn about it.
Thanks again.

Mind Map

I'm afraid that I do not find the use of an MM particularly useful as a navigator. I was hoping to find the CRnnn references on the MM itself but they don't appear to exist. Can you help me understand the differences between solid-coloured nodes and outline-only nodes.

I would love to contribute to the review but the challenging navigation, lack of clearly understandable benefits and (as has already been mentioned) the painful CAPTCHA process means that I simply don't have the time to work through this.

Thanks Keith.

Thanks Keith.

It is the "Category on Map Diagram:" that relates directly to the legs on the MM, rather than the CRxxx references.
The MM is really there to indicate the scope of the review - what was considered etc - rather than a reference to point to every recommendation.
Hopefully the recommendations can be read standalone from the MM - or at least that was the intention.

I accept that there could be frustration about any "clearly understandable benefits", but as I have commented elsewhere - the objective of the MGWG was to make reasonable recommendations for wider consultation. So a "would this work" test was done by the committee as opposed to any detailed breakeven curves based on unknown resources and available (or not) budgets.

In essence there is first a need to see what chimes with the wider membership first - else there could be a significant amount of work done on attempting to costing benefits that don't have the support of the membership.

We started with the issues raised by Member Groups - so all of these recommendations have been born out of concerns raised at previous BCS Community Conventions. By definition they are potential solutions to known issues - so have inherent benefit to helping to solve that problem.

Yes - maybe an 'own goal' for this Drupal platform, but there really is nothing else to centralise this consultation process - as earlier, it has not been tried before, so better support tools don't exist.

If nothing else, we have shown that this platform is probably not fit for this purpose and so better functionality is needed to enable the BCS community be become more empowered with better transparency needed.

I'm sure its very good. But,

I'm sure its very good. But, but to hard to navigate as a flat file.
Perhaps one master map with key topics linked to sub maps would be easier to read.
A key for the colours would have helped, and a document with the details.

Thanks Michael.

Thanks Michael.

Again - its all we have - although I am sure I can hear "a bad workman blames his tools" :-)

As earlier it is the "Category on Map Diagram:" that is the reference for the CRxxx into the MM.
After that the individual recommendations are supposed to stand alone.

No doubt we could have done a better diagram - maybe that is a useful next step after the consultation closes.

Members naming

As per comments from others, this is an overwhelming amount of content to navigate in this format. One of the items that jumped out at me quite quickly was the the Members and the naming. I'm not sure "Ordinary Members" is a great label. It sounds a bit condescending. Are there any alternatives here?