Decision: Default content view

Thing	Info
Relevant features	Content
Date started	2020-10-21
Date finished (original)	2021-03-25
Date updated	2021-07-07
Decision status	Done, unless further research makes us change our mind
Summary of outcome	Subpart default, include option to view whole part

Update (July 7, 2021)

For the pilot project year: Having even a not-entirely-ideal implementation of part view and the associated resources on the right sidebar is better than not having it at all. To that end, design and dev will be scoped to create the best option that is also relatively easy within our current setup.

For the future: We want to eventually support three views: Part, subpart, and section. However, this is going to require rethinking navigation throughout the site, as changing views should change the right sidebar resources displayed and navigation should always be consistent (i.e. whether you click 433.10 in the Part TOC, header, or left sidebar, you should always get the same view). We also want to bring in other titles eventually, which also requires rethinking the site's structure. It makes sense to think about all of this comprehensively at once, as there are wide-ranging design considerations.

July 26, 2021: further discussion is at Decision: Multiple content views.

Background/context

Core question

What should be the default level of content when reading regs? (Part, subpart, or section)

What we know

Other tools:

• Section view is the only choice within classic eRegs (like ATF eRegs) and Cornell LII.
• The most popular view on classic eCFR seems to be part, but you can also find yourself in subpart view or section view - people seem to be a little confused and puzzled when they end up there though.
• Beta eCFR also offers a somewhat dizzying range of options for viewing (part, subpart, section) and ways of navigating around them.

Content:

• Some of the parts in Title 42 are a single topic (like 435 and 438), while others have different subject areas among the subparts (like 433).

Research so far:

• Our domain SME prefers part view for single-topic parts and subpart view for multi-subject parts.
• Only one or two people in our research seemed to prefer section view (and those that preferred it didn't have access to subpart or part view)
• A couple of domain SMEs preferred part view (subpart seemed too short!)
• Many people in our research so far liked the idea of subpart view

Technical details:

• We are able to offer all three or any subset of the three.

Tradeoffs

• Some supplemental content (subreg guidance) is pretty specific to one section, but often it's general for a subpart (it applies to all sections in the subpart).
• Offering all view options may be confusing.
• Section view is probably good for search engine optimization (SEO) - people often search Google for a citation that includes both part and section, so if a page focuses on a specific section, it may be more likely to rank highly on a search results page.

Things we need to decide + options for them

What should we display by default?

Options: Part, subpart, or section

Result: We want to do subpart because it seems to meet the needs of most people (and at least tolerable for domain SMEs who preferred the whole part). It also enables more sensible display of supplemental content than either section view (often too specific) or part view (too broad).

Should we offer multiple ways of viewing?

Options:

• Yes, both subpart and part
• Yes, all three (section, subpart, part)

Result: Probably for now we'll try displaying all the options.

Consequences

We need to display supplemental content in a way that makes sense for subparts. This can be a large amount of supplemental content!

We may need to eventually figure out how to better display supplemental content that is very specific to a section.