We want to work towards a cohesive integration of the inscriptions from Smyrna Turkey. These graffiti were all in the same location and thus a map is unnecessary. We need to determine how to best represent these inscriptions, especially when they are in results without any graffiti from either Herculaneum or Pompeii. The maps of Herculaneum and Pompeii should not be visible in these cases.

Building on the above, if there are only graffiti from Pompeii in the results page, then only that map should be presented to the user. If only inscriptions from Herculaneum are present in the results page, then only that map should be displayed to the user. Only relevant map(s) should be presented to the user. If no graffiti are found, no map should be presented. Also, all visible maps will be appropriately labelled.

Work on the representation of the Smyrna inscriptions on their own details page is already complete or near complete. Smyrna should also be added under the cities drop down for searching.

• Conducting a search and navigating to the results page
• Having a search result return graffiti exclusively from Smyrna
• Having a search return only graffiti from Herculaneum or Pompeii
• Having a city / town not represented in the returned search results

• An understanding of how other graffiti are presented on the site
• Knowing the differences in the data we have concerning Smyrna and data from the EDR
• An understanding of the source code and database that makes the representation of graffiti possible
• Ability to determine the locations of graffiti in the results page

When the user searches for graffiti, the results should be seamless and appealing to the eye. If the Smyrna graffiti appear with other graffiti, then the maps of Herculaneum and Pompeii should be visible. If the only results are from Smyrna, then the maps should not be displayed to the user. The same should be true for both Pompeii and Herculaneum. For example, if all search results are from Herculaneum, then that is the only map the user should be able to see. The trick is making sure that users don't assume that this is a bug. Perhaps we display some sort of image denoting that all of the graffiti being presented are from Smyrna. Additionally, the maps should be labelled, so that it is clear to users where the graffiti are located.

On the individual inscriptions' details page, the graffito's name, id, translation, contributors, etc should all be visible to the user. Essentially, anything that is displayed on a graffito's page from Herculaneum or Pompeii should also be displayed for those from Smyrna. Most notably, there will not be a map associated with these inscriptions.

When the user searches for graffiti they shouldn't become jarred by the fact that maps have disappeared on the results page. Beyond that, user behavior should be the same for Smyrna inscriptions as it is for the other graffiti. Hopefully the removal of the maps under certain circumstances shouldn't greatly influence user behavior.

The user should be able to navigate the Smyrna graffiti detail pages in the same ways they could navigate any of the other graffiti pages. Features these inscriptions share include a drop down menu for the Epidoc conventions and a button to return to the results page among many others. Additionally, we should also include a link to Smyrna on the Pleiades site.

There really aren't any novel use cases associated with this feature. Essentially, we are just removing the maps of Herculaneum and Pompeii from the results page, if all of the results are from Smyrna. More generally we are only having the maps display, if graffiti from that region are present in the search results. This is being done to avoid confusing the user. All other features of the search should remain unchanged. Therefore, the use cases should also be the same.

On the results page, only maps that are relevant to the returned results will be shown to the user. When all inscriptions come from Smyrna or there are no results found, then no maps will be visible. Maps will also be labelled, to make identification of them easier for the average user.

Priority: Low

I wouldn't rank the priority of this feature very high. This is essentially an aesthetic change rather that a functional one. Most of the functional components of this feature, such as accessing and storing Smyrna data in the database have already been accomplished. With this in mind, I would place our other features with a higher priority. So, of our 3 features, I would rank this one third and last.