Site Pages

Information Presentation. Moving down the hierarchy of Concepts, from the overall Sitemap, through Navigation (of Site Sections and SubSections), we now come to the Site Page, where the actual presentation of information to the site visitor takes place.

[Note]Note

In the next section, as we move further yet along the hierarchical descent to Modules (page fragments), we'll discuss how Presentation is actually (programmatically) managed and rendered at the Module-, not Page-, level, but for the purposes of the site visitor, presentation is experienced at the Page level.

Content Selection. Also found at the Page level is the editorial selection process of deciding "what goes on a Page," from a Content perspective. While arguably editorial decisions about Content are made at all levels of the site's hierarchy (the Site, the Site Section, the Page, the Module), it is at the Page level that the publication editor (site webmaster) is most concerned with the arrangement of potentially diverse components of information. Their selection and the overall page composition need to best match the intended audience's desires and expectations for information delivery, at that point in the site experience. (As just a very basic example of the thinking: Sometimes a briefer version of the content is more useful; at other points in the site the full text version of the information is what's sought, etc.)

An aid to the visitor experience that can be provided at the Page level is that there be a set of relatively consistent page "types" encountered throughout the site. In this way the visitor quickly becomes familiar with how to locate useful information on each page, and, in finding that this pattern is repeated, can save time and effort.

Page Types are often associated with certain "Levels" of the site, as we see in our Sitemap documentation, where the site has some five levels (0 - 4). Typically, the pages "across" one of these "horizontal" levels will share certain page design ideas (e.g. Level 1 pages have "Highlights"). The concept is simply that regardless of the content (e.g. the actual topic: "Research & Development" vs. "About Millennium"), the nature of the kinds of information you present at that Level in the site will share a certain consistency (e.g. "summary" info, or "cross-link related" info). And so, to support this information architecture requirement, the visual Page arrangement should be laid out to reflect these needs.

Examples of this "Page Typing" are seen in the "Page Visualizations" section of this documentation, in particular the "Representative Site Pages".

An interesting example of something of an exception to the rule is the "Representative Press Release Pages" set of page types. Visually, these vary only a little from the "Representative Site Pages" at a glance, but the end-user experience of encountering various presentations of the press release (summary version, brief listing version, full version), and of using a kind of "in-body navigation" (e.g. the "Year 2003" page), makes for a different experience in the Press Releases area of the site. Despite these differences, behind the scenes, we'll learn that the actual "bones" of these pages (the Page Layouts) are actually the same as for the Representative Site Pages. Interestingly, though, further behind the scenes we'll (further) learn that the Module processing for the Press Release pages differs a fair amount from that of the "regular" site pages—that's largely what makes for that "different" experience described above (various presentations; in-body navigation listing). And so, at three levels (at least): visual ("glance"), layout structure ("bones"), and module processing ("content"), we can consider factors that influence the determination of the need for new Page Types.

[Tip]Tip

An additional "factor" that caused this project to require more Page Types was the realization (late in development) that on very short pages, the background image (a helix: /images/bg_image.jpg) (566px width, 345px height) was looking too large, and would be better suppressed. Now, to get this background image to the correct position (which crosses two divs), it was necessary to invoke it as part of the Page Layout, not from a Module placed into the Page Layout (like most every thing else on the page). So, to remove this "helix" bgimage based on the somewhat ad hoc requirement ("for the very short pages" (e.g. /careers/search/index.asp)), meant modification to the Page Layout. Creating a new variation was the best option, and so for this project we have a set of paired layouts (e.g. "Page Layout 5" (pl05.html) and "Page Layout 5 without BgImage" (pl05a.html)). The simple distinction is that pl05.html does contain the background image (by means of CSS class; HTML code snippet: "<div id="b_ma_co-re" class="bgImage">":

CSS code snippet
.bgImage
{
	background-image:url(/images/bg_image.jpg);
	background-position:bottom left;
	background-repeat:no-repeat;
}

while the pl05a.html has only <div id="b_ma_co-re"> (no bgImage invocation).

Figure 3.19. Page Layout (01): Header: Site Header, Nav One

Page Layout (01): Header: Site Header, Nav One

Here we have the first "breakout" from the overall page: the Header and inside it the two Module Zones that make it up: Site Header (h_sh), and Nav One (h_no). Each of these, being Module Zones, are "rectangles" inside of which you can place content Modules. (Contrast with the parent rectangle to these, "Header," which is not a Module Zone—it is not a low enough level of granularity, and houses other Zones, instead of Modules directly.)

Note that the naming convention includes two additional components:

The appearance of this appended digit is the signal in the naming convention that the Zone in question is being used to contain Modules directly: you have arrived at a "Module Zone" (as opposed to the higher level Zones, with no digit, that house only other Zones). To state it more explicitly: the naming convention uses letters only, until the use of this digit, which signifies that in this Zone, Modules can be directly placed.

The "underscore_letter" is used as the final token to indicate precisely which Position within the Zone a Module is to go. These simply stack up sequentially (_a, _b, _c etc.), and thereby follow the "flow" (straight down) of any given page zone. (So in fact to state it more precisely, the buildlist.xml assignment above (h_sh1_a = mlnm_site_header.html) is not to a Zone, but right to a Position within that Zone.)

[Note]Note

The question may occur, why (for example) the 'Site Header' Zone isn't simply named sh1_a to begin with (or at least sh1), vs. the simple sh it receives, and to which are subsequently appended a digit 1 and then the underscore_letter (_a).

First, it isn't named sh1_a because that is the name of a Position, not a Zone.

And it isn't automatically given the name sh1 for a more subtle reason. The thinking is that every Zone has the potential to be either a Module Zone, or not one (and thereby simply a Zone that contains other Zones). To maintain this basic flexibility, every Zone should have a name using letters only (no digit), such that when in practice you use the Zone, you can retain the letters-only name if it contains other Zones only, or, you may append a digit 1 if it is used as a Module Zone.

As a practical example, it is conceivable that the Site Header (sh) Zone be divided into two further Zones: "Company Logo" (cl), and "Global Utilities Navigation" (gu). If this were adopted, sh would no longer get an appended digit 1 (no longer a "Module Zone"), and the new cl would become a Module Zone cl1, and the new gu would become Module Zone gu1. (And then, yes, the actual Positions inside those hypothetical Zones where Modules got placed would get the full naming convention of: h_sh_cl1_a and h_sh_gu1_a, etc.)

This may be the point at which to try to define the basic rules for identifying where zones are found. As can be seen, since zones nest, it can appear tricky to be certain about where one zone leaves off and another picks up. There can be more than one "right answer" to the way in which a page is broken down into zones, ultimately.

[Tip]Tip

The basic rule for each of the three breakouts of zones and Module zones that we've seen in the figures above is this: In looking at any outer zone—a zone that contains zones (e.g., our whole Page, or after that, our Header, or the Body, or next, this 'Matter' zone)—the rule for any given breakout of zones inside is that all broken out zones will have rectangles with a side of equal length. What this means, simply, is that for any given rectangle (the outer zone we're discussing), the only permitted way to cut it up is with slices either all vertical or all horizontal, but slices all the way through the outer rectangle.

In practical terms, this means you do can not create any direct breakouts of rectangles incorporated into any colspan (or rowspan) constructions. You must first breakout the entire rectangle that contains the colspan (or rowspan) and the spanned columns (or rows).

We see two examples of this on this page. First, the 'Body' has 'Nav Two' as a rowspan, with the 'Matter' rectangle containing two rows: the 'Page Header' row on top, with the 'Content + "Related"' ('CO-RE') row beneath. Then, the 'Matter' rectangle in turn has a colspan in 'Page Header,' with a single large rectangle beneath, 'Content + "Related"' ('CO-RE'), that in turn contains the two spanned columns: 'Content' and '"Related"'.

Both of these are broken down (as we shall see) according to the basic rules set out above.