As we discussed in the NFP/Eionet Group meeting last week we intend to already this autumn make the first major overhaul of the Eionet portal, on top of the gradual stepwise improvements that we have made since the project started.
In my presentation at the meeting I summarised the plan for the autumn on the slide Deliverables in 2018*) as follows:
- A cleaner and better structured Eionet Portal and Eionet Forum on the current IT platform:
- Outdated content updated
- Irrelevant content removed
- Navigation simplified and made more logical
- A reborn (new) Eionet planner, ready for use for the full year 2019, covering all Eionet meetings, EEA governance meetings (MB, Bureau, SC), Eionet consultations, launch dates for publications and other events of relevance for Eionet. (Reporting Obligations deadlines available directly in a list from the Reporting Obligation Database) rather than the Planner).
*) Text slightly modified to reflect the discussion in the meeting)
Following up the discussions after the presentation and in the two breakout sessions we are now ready with a proposal for an improved structure/navigation to be implemented on the Eionet Portal, and, as agreed in Athens, I am hereby sending it to the full NPF/Eionet group for consultation.
You can find the proposal implemented on the Eionet portal test website (password: Eionet) and a schematic presentation of it in the attached PowerPoint file. Please note, when viewing the test website that the shortcuts that are “hidden” at the bottom will be more visible on the left side on the Eionet portal itself (where the shortcuts are now).
We would appreciate to get your comments by end October and intend thereafter to implement the new structure already in the week of 5-9 November (unless we get so many diverging comments that we find another consultation round to be necessary).
You can provide your comments in a free text format in an email to me or visualise them in the PowerPoint template (second page in the attached file). Furthermore, you can post your comments to this email on the project blog where you will find this email under the post “Third mail to the NFP/Eionet Group: Consultation”
I would also like to use this opportunity to ask for your comments on the improvement proposals that you will find on the project blog and in my presentation at the meeting last week (both the existing proposals and if you would like to add new ones). Furthermore, it would be great, as discussed at the meeting, if some of you volunteered to interact with the project team more frequently between the NFP/Eionet Group meetings (both members of the ICT User Group and other interested NFP/Eionet group members). Despite working with a subgroup between meetings, we will nevertheless, as also was discussed in the meeting, be fully transparent to the complete NFP/Eionet group and inform on all major step taken (both on the Project blog and in the NFP/Eionet Interest Group on the Forum)
With best regards,
PS1: While awaiting your comments we will work further on the cleaning operation of Interest groups on the Forum and the Projects websites and explore how best to technically implement the new Eionet planner.
PS2: Following the discussion in one of the breakout groups we have now added a list per country on the Eionet countries pages for both the “role” Reportnet and Extranet.
Eionet Systems Coordination
1) trivial comment on new structure proposal: changes concerning ETCs to be introduced from 01.01.19 onwards – 7 instead of 6
2) As proposed in the improval list about documents in NFP/EIONET IG (or other) which might be useful to become more public: perhaps we should become more concrete.
Candidates are: NFP role description – NRC profile description – Training material – … – Cooperation Guidelines (?).
Thank you very much for your proposal shared with us.
I am used to the current structure and working so many years with the system I just automatically click to find things I need. So any change would be some kind of a challenge forcing me (and others) to learn the new structure. For my work I do not see the urgent need to change but if the change is going to happen let me comment on your proposals.
Some reflections regarding the proposed new navigation structure.
1. There’s a problem with the “name” of the 1st column – Eionet, as
a) it includes items not only for EIONET: user directory shows also Extranet users; ECDFs contain flows coming not necessarily from EIONET reporters…
b) Forum is mainly for EIONET but is not under Eionet; mails to NFPs refer only to EIONET NFPs but are not under Eionet column.
c) ETCs are part of EIONET but in your proposal the Eionet and ETCs are at the same hierarchical level
Therefore there is need to think about the different name of the 1st column – not “Eionet”.
2. Having tools for operational EIONET issues under different columns is a little strange – at least not natural for me, ie: Planner is in the 1st column called Eionet, Forum in the 2nd one and Mails to NFPs in the 3rd one called Tools tied together with GEMET and GIS. All 3: Planner, Forum and Mails are tools for daily usage to manage the EIONET cooperation and from my perspective it seems to be more logical to have them in the same group (column) with a name like Workspace or the other one showing that there are operational tools there.
In such a case User directory also fits there.
I fully understand the idea to have the Forum with the fastest access way possible but I guess we can keep different IG lists at the same level as also some other, not Forum, items.
What is more, if we have special shortcuts to Forum in the left panel, there is no need for a separate column for Forum reserved only for Forum.
3. ECDFs and SERIS are of different nature than User directory and Planner as they are not to manage the network and cooperation. They are more like services.
4. It is not clear why AQ portal is added in tools and services. I guess it should be easily found on the EEA main website. There are also other thematic platforms held by the EEA. So if there is additionally a need, apart from the EEA website, to have the AQ listed in EIONET website, it seems to be logical to have there also other thematic services like BISE, FISE (to be done), WISE etc.
On the other hand if we look into AQ portal it is of a little different nature than WISE or BISE as it is dedicated to technical details and services to facilitate e-reporting. It makes it very close to the Reportnet group which could be changed into Reporting and include also thematic services below strictly Reportnet elements like AQ portal and CDFs scoring.
Another platform foreseen is for the energy reporting (new tasks of the EEA) so perhaps it is also to be added in the same group where the AQ portal.
To conclude I attach 3 proposals of navigation structure for consideration visualised in your PP presentation – slides no 2, 3 and 4 (sent via e-mail, I do not see the option to upload it here).
EEA/EIONET NFP PL