I think I'm missing some information here so I won't comment on the details, but I like option 1 better.

Great! Any specific information you are missing?

In T304113#7788425, @CKMIE89 wrote:

Great! Any specific information you are missing?

Mainly, I don't know anything about many of the subpage names shown there. However, it's pretty easy to get an idea of what those pages are for, and the map makes sense AFAICS.

Thank you for this @CKMIE89. A few clarifying questions:

1. When we say sitemap, are we talking about the conceptual planning of where each page go within the Event Center, or the human-visible sitemap that you can sometimes see at the bottom of a webpage? I assume it's the former but wanted to confirm.
2. What feedback are you looking for? Is the intent to choose between option 1 and 2?
3. From looking at the sitemaps, I am not sure I understand which page/content is the "landing page" i.e. first thing user sees when they hit the Event Center?
4. I see there are distinction between logged-in and logged-out users; but if we were to go with splitting participants and organizer profiles, how will we know which to show if a user isn't logged in?

In T304113#7788467, @Daimona wrote:

In T304113#7788425, @CKMIE89 wrote:

Great! Any specific information you are missing?

Mainly, I don't know anything about many of the subpage names shown there. However, it's pretty easy to get an idea of what those pages are for, and the map makes sense AFAICS.

yes, at this point we don't have the page level detail, but once we have everyone's high level insights we will start wireframing details of key screens.

In T304113#7788587, @vyuen wrote:

Thank you for this @CKMIE89. A few clarifying questions:

1. When we say sitemap, are we talking about the conceptual planning of where each page go within the Event Center, or the human-visible sitemap that you can sometimes see at the bottom of a webpage? I assume it's the former but wanted to confirm. Site map we are talking about the ones on Figma you are commenting on
2. What feedback are you looking for? Is the intent to choose between option 1 and 2? not yet, but getting your informed opinion is important to us. Is anything major missing? Is there anything you don't think should be in the event center?
3. From looking at the sitemaps, I am not sure I understand which page/content is the "landing page" i.e. first thing user sees when they hit the Event Center? we havent designed it yet, at this point it's the "event center dashboard" block
4. I see there are distinction between logged-in and logged-out users; but if we were to go with splitting participants and organizer profiles, how will we know which to show if a user isn't logged in? if you are not logged in you cannot access the organizer side at all, and only those elements on the participant view where log in is not needed. Good question

@all, if you want to recommend the key pages we should detail, please list them. Of course we will be doing the landing page, but what other ones are key to you, are you have the most questions about?

I think the site map is really good and easy to understand, I also like option 1 better.

I think it makes more sense to go with the option 1

Thank you @CKMIE89 for these great site maps. I have some general feedback and questions.

1. How does the sitemap tie back to the final opportunities selected from the prioritization matrix? Does the sitemap target all the final opportunities selected?
2. Organzer and participants are not fixed roles, depending on the context/situation, the same person can be an organizer and participant. Option 1 seems to mirror this fluidity of roles. Even though participating and organizing are unified in option 1, it may be a good idea to separate organizing information/tasks from participating information/tasks. For example, 'My Events' in option 1 seems to combine both events a user is organizing and participating in one page or list. It may be more simple and cause less cognitive load if these two are separated, so, when a user is organizing they are shown info/tasks/actions that are focused on organizing, same for participating. This is also the structure of other event creation sites you presented in your Comparative Analysis. They have a single landing page with an event calendar focused on participation and a button that leads you to a page that is focused on the Events you are organizing and the corresponding tasks/actions. It will be great if you can create a 3rd sitemap/wireframe for this and get feedback from users alongside the other options.
3. Under topics on which s.he can contribute in the participant-only sitemap and Topics that lack content in organizer-only sitemap you have Create Article as a call to action. It doesn't seem to be under any particular event. If so, why? What is your goal for this? Do you intend to encourage article creation outside of an event?
4. There seems to be much emphasis on becoming an organizer on the participant sitemap? Are one of our goals to motivate participants to organize cc @ifried?

Other sitemap component-specific comments are on Figma.

Hi @gonyeahialam ,

let me answer here:

1. You'll find that we categorized the ideas from the prioritization exercises we did with the team, to determine categories and pages present in the sitemaps. At this stage, all final ideas are not included, but we will see more at the wireframe level.
2. Yes that is a good comment, and we believe the wireframes will show a version for that using filters. From the community feedback we will also see if filters are not enough and if a different page is needed, but at the site map level we would not see that detail.
3. Good question! Yes it was Nadia's suggestion, but this doesn't need to stay.
4. I do believe we want to make that onboarding process easier, but @ifried can confirm.

@gonyeahialam , are there specific pages you want us to wireframe in particular?

Hello, everyone! In response to some of the questions/ideas presented in the task description and comments:

1. Choosing Site Map Structure: I honestly struggled with what would be better (option 1 or option 2), since I see good arguments for both. In the case of Option 1, I do like that we're thinking of how to onboard people in a holistic sense, so that participants can more easily be nudged into becoming organizers. This is especially useful because not only can participants become organizers, but also some organizers actively participate in their own events as contributors. Also, there are some features that don't feel like they only fit for one "side," such as the event calendar (it seems like it's both for organizers and participants). In the case of Option 2, I do think that the separation of participant and organizer has some benefit, since it may reduce cognitive load/complexity, as Gregory mentioned. It's also how some current platforms exist, where there is a host/organizer/creator side and a hostee/participant/recipient side. I am wondering, does design research have any recommendation, based on their findings (pinging @CKMIE89)? Since I am honestly torn, and I think there are certainly benefits to going with Option 1, I am fine with proceeding with the plan to focus on Option 1.

2. Encouraging participants to become organizers: In response to the question asked by @gonyeahialam: Yes, we do want it make it easier to become a campaign organizer. One of our goals, as a team, is to encourage more people to become campaign organizers and more campaign events to be created. Of course, we want people to be impactful, effective organizers (so it is about both quantity and quality). To make this possible, more people need to nudged within the system/user flows to consider becoming an organizer, and they need user-friendly steps to "level up" and become a more sophisticated organizer over time. These are long-term goals rather than something we need to implement immediately, but it's definitely a goal that should be considered when designing the site maps or other work.