Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft Article Content Type for hhs.gov #9

Open
bonniestrong opened this issue Oct 15, 2014 · 4 comments
Open

Draft Article Content Type for hhs.gov #9

bonniestrong opened this issue Oct 15, 2014 · 4 comments

Comments

@bonniestrong
Copy link

HHS.gov is creating new content types for a migration to Drupal in 2015. We've altered our fields to map to the GSA Article model. We intend to map the fields to Schema.org and OpenGraph markup in the page source as well (although this will be invisible to the editor.) I am adding images below because I see no other way to share xls or pdf files. The spreadsheet is what we edit with our developers. We use the other images when discussing with clients. This is very much a work in progress.

It's worth noting we've made the following decisions:

  • We are not including ArticleSection (Title and Body) as required fields. We will only have one Body field, although the Detailed Description may also serve as a Summary in Drupal.
  • We are using two dates only. Created Date is the date the item is initially drafted and operates as a 'published or posted' date as well.. If an item is published days or weeks later it will keep the Created Date unless an editor makes the change. Last modified date also requires manual editing by the content manager when an item is reviewed or updated.
  • I just noticed there is an inconsistency... right now we expect to limit the characters in the short description to 160 (not 165).
  • We are considering how we might identify FOIA related content in the markup so common electronic reading room items can be identified across agencies. DOJ is working on this (I think).

I'm sure there will be other questions. I'd be happy to discuss and we're looking forward to your feedback!

Bonnie Strong
Content Stratagist (Consultant) at HHS.gov
mapping
slide1
slide2
slide3

@jpgsa
Copy link

jpgsa commented Oct 22, 2014

Hi Bonnie,

Thanks for submitting. I'll let other working group members know. @philipashlock @smileytech @logantpowell Take a look!

@hbirving
Copy link

Hi Bonnie,

Thanks so much for sharing these. FDA is looking at a CMS migration and content models are very much a part of that effort. I'll make sure they're aware of your work.

@jpgsa
Copy link

jpgsa commented Nov 19, 2014

From 11/19 working group call.
Working on a phased approach and implementing in December. Looking at about 500 page using article content model. Any feedback for them?
-Cursory look, everyone likes the approach.
-They've used Facebook and Twitter in it.
-They have adapted it well to their particular needs.
-Any other thoughts?

They will be coming with other models soon. :)

@ShawnEklund
Copy link

Thank you Bonnie! I was looking for an example of how the fields would be implemented on a CMS, and it just so happens that we are going to a Drupal CMS in the coming months.

As I try to wrap my head around structured content I've got a questions with regards to the article type.

  1. Does the "ArticleSection" allow for a section of the body to be defined? I want to define a quote.? Can I use this section to define a quote so that it can be displayed based on structure.
    SectionTitle (Required, Only one allowed)
    SectionBody (Required, Only one allowed)
    SectionQuote (Optional, Multiple allowed)
    We've adopted Canada's press release style http://www.digitalgov.gov/2014/01/23/extreme-makeover-gc-news-release-edition/ and I thought that if we define the quote we could allow CSS or an API the option to define the display.

I'm I thinking about this in the wrong way? Am I going down a rabbit hole?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants