Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

There was no set agenda for this call and a relatively small group participated.

Some of the issues that were discussed included:

  • There is continued concern about how the outcomes from the T&L "instructional visioning" efforts might be used.  Participants don't want to pour a lot of effort into something that sits in Confluence and does not end up being used by designers or developers. 
    • There were also some related questions on how this might be used by the newly formed Product Council and the new Product Development Process.
  • There was discussion around the two primary initiatives that have been discussed previously, these being the "simple learning environment" work that David Goodrum began after the Boston conference and the "Contextual Inquiry Process" that the UX community has begun to use around visioning for Sakai 3 capabilities.
    • There was concern voiced that trying to implement contextual inquiries for every basic function might be "over kill" in that there is a baseline of capabilities that the T&L group feels we can identify without a lot of end-user input.  For example, we clearly need the ability to administer basic tests and these need to include a set of basic question types (multiple choice, etc.).  We don't necessarily need to interview users to know that this is a need.
    • On the other hand, once we get down to issues of workflow as well as fine grain capabilities (e.g. providing a method for faculty to provide audio feedback) then end-user input becomes fairly critical.

This discussion lead the group to conclude that "two prong attack plan" might make the most sense where we use the "simple learning environment" process to map out major capabilities and themes and then engage in contextual inquiry processes to get at the finer grain issues.

  • No labels