- Trasparency of process
- Complexity
- Workflow across tools
- Need to design for the entire workflow
- Users don't use tools in silos
- Documentation silo
- Tools work in isolation
- Flow through tools limited
- Community mirrors this isolated approach
- Interaction idioms not consistent
- Not enough consistency between tools
- Balance between consistency & doing what's right to improve and/or a particular context
- Customization & standardization (individual & institution)
- Tension between design & development
- Cost of localization
- Little user research in general & lack of sharing knowledge
- Lack of understanding user
- Sakai technology complex
- small changes take forever
- Each tool has different technology
- Too abstract - what does it mean to be a CLE?
- Pain points are cross cutting (ex. back button, iframes, navigation, state, etc.)
- Feels like a "they" waiting on
- Local vs. community fix - how to inform, ownership
- Lack of acknowledgement for problem
- Requirements process to granular (rile in pile)
- Transparency regarding process for feature integration
- No map of landscape
- Who are the stakeholders?
- UI not early enough in the process
- Structure of development process lends to vacuum
- What constitutes a legacy tool?
- What are people working on?
- Backwards compatibility
- Localization
- Novice to expert
- Not enough design resources
- Proliferation of functionality (chaos, MS syndrome)
- No device independence
- Ability to find UI documentation (CSS...)
- Configuration options - what can we do without dev
- Difficulty installing some tools; barrier to bringing in new functions
- Lack of migration tools
- End user documentation
- Specific design issues
- Too many clicks (assessment/Samigo)
- Design not oriented toward courses (compared to Moodle)
- Users say design not intuitive
- Tabs lacking flexibility
- Not transformable to user needs
- Lack of compliancy (FERPA)