GSoD 2019 : Review and Refactoring our Information Architecture for OpenMRS

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fddf45af8c8>

@c.antwi Kindly go through this brief document.

I would need to discuss this persona with you @c.antwi as it will help me in creating IA taking in consideration non-technical users. Kindly go through this and comment

Hi @marslan8530,

Thanks for sharing your ideas about the user personas for the website. Now that you have a better idea about who goes to the website and why, what about the Wiki? Who are the main users there?

1 Like

Hey @jennifer

No problem. Actually i was observing our site-map and comparing that to a general site. It seems we’ve some repetition and i’d suggest that we re-structure our site menu. Honestly, I intend to work on website first.

Regarding persona for our Wiki okay i’ll make another brief one and upload link here by tonight. I want you to please help me make it better. @c.antwi has not had time to look at it maybe but i’d really appreciate if senior guides and community members can critically analyze this and help me make it better. We don’t have time and resources to utilize modern tools but i’m very hopeful that senior members of community like you know and have interacted with all types of users that visit us and can help shape up a very concrete persona.

I am also picking up some time to look through it!!

1 Like

@marslan8530 Can you make the document editable so that I can include comments? Is there anything else in addition to what you have captured for the wiki? or am I looking at the wrong link?


I was thinking these personas would be pretty good thing to start of. Improving them would make Wiki a lot more user-centered than it is right now.

During my discussion with @jennifer we were talking about how to make profile and related information better. Working on 1st persona of a curious vistor, I’ve documented some information in link below.

1 Like

In light of the above, we can start looking at the current information architecture of the wiki and how it meets the needs of the personas you have identified. We may also want to look at other types of wiki’s and compare how they have structured their content in line with the personas’ they have identified vs how we have structured ours currently.

Questions that we can answer include:

  1. What information architecture approach has the wiki used?
  2. What are the good things and negative things about the information architecture of the said wiki?
  3. What aspects of our Information Architecture could we improve based on the assessment?

From there it should be possible to draft a tentative information architecture which the community can comment on.

Examples of wiki’s we could look at:

  1. and

  2. and


  4. and

cc @jennifer please copy in the person working on the website as well. I think we could arrange a design forum or two to look at this.

1 Like

@marslan8530 thats very good start though , on motivation to visit list, have more motivations and you may include what implementors may expect while joining, thanks good work

1 Like

@marslan8530, going back to your personas, I’d like to delve more into this idea of a curious user as a “customer” and as a “volunteer.”

For a curious user, I’d suggest to subdivide and make 2 personas

  1. New and curious. Wants to learn more about OMRS as a customer. (Person-A)
  2. New and curious. Wants to learn more about OMRS as a volunteer. (Person-B)

I can see Person B transitioning from a curious user to those other personas as they get to know our community and become more involved.

For Person A, I think there may be different types of customers. Certainly, we can view users as someone in a health facility using OpenMRS to manage patient data.

I can also see organizations and service providers coming to our wiki and being curious about how they work with the community and our service provider program.

I wasn’t involved in the initial iteration of the documentation profiles, so any insight from those who were are more than welcome!

1 Like

I hope this is helpful

1 Like

Thanks for the share @tendomart

1 Like

Hey everyone.

I’d like to have your suggestions. As we are in the persona building phase, i don’t see any point in different personas of testers. This link is being referred to here.

This tab contains a description that is misleading for a non-technical user.

people interested in testing OpenMRS. This title description gives somewhat information that its for people who need to use OMRS trail version or some sort(?) This page however is for volunteers/contributors to test OMRS so i’d say for testers we don’t need a separate persona and they can easily be settled in volunteering opportunities tab.

@jennifer @c.antwi @sharif @gcliff @herbert24

Let me know if i’m missing out on something?


@marslan8530 will have a look

1 Like

hey @c.antwi can we schedule a conference call in upcoming days this week?

@marslan8530 can we still go with Thursday’s 8pm EAT as the REST API Team did last week , is that ok with you ?

@tendomart this means 5pm UTC right?

1 Like

@ball @dkayiwa @c.antwi @jennifer @jwnasambu could you be having inputs on how we can best help @marslan8530 to get passed this blocker that he is facing?

Did you take a look at the links for Testers and Subject Matter Experts?

A Tester can be an expert in the subject matter of Testing. Any subject matter expert can be a volunteer and is a contributor. What do you find misleading on the tester information page? What is out dated for subject matter experts?

Hey @dkayiwa For non-technical users, people interested in testing OpenMRS may be taken somewhat as a trail version before the actual implementation. That’s what i reffed to while saying “misleading”

And as you said “tester can be an expert in subject matter of testing” and “any subject matter expert is a volunteer” so my point is we should arrange all these information for persona(s) and page intended for volunteers. Separate categorizing upfront should be done between contributors, service provider or implementer, new users and other personas we have developed. Then we can sub-divide.

Regarding Outdated information, information for someone who is interested in translating or documentation should be details of projects we’re looking to work on and suggestions if they intend on working on some problem they found them self. We’ve classified and given details of “Clinical Content Experts” and so on. I don’t get the logic behind this. On page next to this Documentation review work needed we haven’t mentioned type of expert needed for a task which makes this page awkward.

I may be missing out on something as i don’t know much about OMRS as you people do. That is why i’m asking for enlightenment.

This is not correct. Not all subject matter experts are volunteers.

Everyone who does something is a contributor, regardless of whether you are a volunteer or not.

Can you update the information which you think is out dated?

My suggestion is that you start with only those that you understand. Then we can continue to discuss and refine those that you do not.

How would you state this to make it clearer?