• Project Overview: Suggest switching the paragraphs to lead with the “what/why,” before the funding and partners.
  • Move “What is a PPI” section to after “Project Overview.” I think it’s good to have PPI defined as a starting point even though users may be familiar. The description of the PPI is a good concise summary. (It looks like it might be in this order in the headings, but not when you scroll down.)
  • “Where We Worked” title might be changed to one of the following “Participating/Pilot/Partner Communities” or “Selected Communities” (to keep the language consistent with the timeline) to highlight the work that the communities did. Might be more relatable/accessible to someone seeking this information.
  • Mississippi page – define what C-HOST stands for (Coastal Hazard Outreach Strategy Team)
  • Louisiana page – define what SWIFT stands for.
  • “Key PPI Milestones” are the steps that communities have to take. For some reason “Milestones” makes me think backwards rather than forward. “Key PPI Actions” gets across steps I have to take. (But that might not translate that way for everyone!)
  • 02: Identify PPI Community Members. Is this step about forming a committee and directly related to the next major section “The Program For Public Information Committee?” If so, suggest changing to include “committee” in the heading: “02: Identify/Form PPI Committee.”
  • Lessons Learned. Suggest adding a concise heading for each of the 4 lessons learned, for example:
    1. Single vs Multi-jurisdiction
    2. Realistic Timeline
    3. Working Document
    4. Clear Messaging
  • Links for the final PPIs and final report are way at the bottom under additional information. Suggest a separate section for “Final documents” or “Resources.”
  • On the landing page, the subtitle “Assisting Communities…” looks a bit awkward with a period at the end and the varied capitalization. Just centering it (like it is), taking away the period, and capitalizing “Real World” would help with consistency. Also the “a” following the colon might need to be capitalized, depending on what looks better.
  • With the map of “Where We Worked,” why are two of the stars gray and the rest of them red? There is also no information about Harrison or Hancock Counties in the paragraph description below “Mississippi” despite all three Louisiana parishes listed in the map being mentioned under “Louisiana.”
  • On the timeline, if there are going to be pictures for some of the dates in addition to the icons, there needs to be some sort of image with each date.
  • When you click on all of the pictures to enlarge them, they pop up with a file name or some sort of text at the bottom left corner. Some of the images just have things like “Cameron 6” or “hurricane expo” on them. This would be a great place to add some sort of brief caption for the picture, but you might have to re-upload with the caption as the file name to do this.
  • Under “What is a PPI?” (aside: the header link is “What’s a PPI” and the heading in the body of the website is “What is a PPI.” It’s a small change, but picking one for consistency’s sake would be good.) take out the “is” in “is monitored, evaluated…” because you have the “is” before the colon and don’t have another is in the first bullet point. The first sentence of the second full paragraph in this section is also a bit hard to follow. Maybe shuffle and/or combine the sentences in that paragraph so that it reads something like: “The PPI is a valuable tool for CRS communities because it provides additional credit through more CRS points for outreach activities coordinated through PPI than for standalone activities.”
  • Personally, I don’t love the “01., 02., etc.” setup of the Key PPI Milestones. If there were over ten, maybe I could see using the 0’s, but it just seems unnecessary to me. You might not have to number them at all, since there isn’t really anything else numbered on the website (everything else seems to be in bulleted format). You could leave the bolded headings for each paragraph and just drop the numbers.
  • There’s a comma splice after “official” in “04.” The sentence should read, “The PPI document must achieve formal, official status within the community.”
  • Under “The Program for Public Information Committee,” I think the first sentence would read fine without the second community (“made up of community employees and stakeholders”) because this is less wordy.
  • In the same section, under Single Jurisdiction, you could indent the “local government” and “community” bullet points and sub-bullets one more tab, since they’re talking about specific requirements and don’t really need to be aligned with the general requirements in the “must have…” bullet point. Similarly on the Multi-Jurisdiction side, starting with “Minimum of 2 Members” instead of splitting that into two bullet points and following a similar indentation scheme would make this section easier to read and more cohesive.

To give you an idea of the indentation scheme I had in mind, the left part:

 Single Jurisdiction  
     Minimum of 5 Members  
                      Local Government  
                           Floodplain Manager  
                           PIO  
                      Community  
                           3 Community Members for Committee of 5  
              Must have equal or greater rep.  
                       For example,...
  • Again in the same section, adding something like an asterisk or an additional symbol in front of the sentence after the text box that talks about qualifying for more points under CRS Activity 370 would emphasize that this is an aside.