Child pages
  • T&L Design Lenses, 1 Nov 2010
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

AGENDA

  1. Welcome and Introductions
     
  2. Notetaker volunteers? Nov 1 Etherpad: http://titanpad.com/L2ZZv9Hydlhttp://titanpad.com/svv0rleoXx
     
  3.  Today's topic:  Open Sakai, the public (anonymous) user experience

Meeting Notes

Welcome and Introductions

Sign in below:

  • Lynn Ward, Indiana University
  • Jacques Raynauld, HEC Montréal
  • Ken Romeo, Stanford
  • Clay Fenlason, Georgia Tech
  • Ann Jensen, TX State
  • Debbie Runshe, IU/IUPUI
  • Robin Hill, Wyoming
  • David Goodrum, Indiana
  • Sam Parker, CSU
  • Janice Smith, Three Canoes

Notetaker volunteers? Nove 1 Etherpad: http://titanpad.com/svv0rleoXx

Today's topic:  Open Sakai, the public (anonymous) user experience         

Some info in sharing spec may inform the browse spec above. (Generally true of clusters of specs in a given topic. See issue from different sides.)
JR: Syllabus featured in both specs, but we don't have a clear understanding of role / components / behavior of syllabus. Confusing/reduces clarity to some extent... One view of syllabus is that it is where you put everything relevant to course but that assumption has not been discussed.
CF: what is user need driving syllabus? Need to see summary info on course for decision-making / sign up. Present top level info is user need in these specs.
LW: How instructor manages access to syllabus is in sharing spec below; even there details aren't dealt with because we don't know how things will work
JB: If some content made public/searchable and other content is not, users might make assumptions about finding things that aren't public...ceates confusion for user. Do we need a use case for the user w/out access?
JR: You should always find something (LW: true for all institutions?) in regard to syllabus: even if just a general description of course. CF: Not always: S3 as walled garden configurable by institutions. There should be indications of what might be possible/available on a given page with prompt to log in to view more so people don't get sense info isn't there.
LW: If info is private you should not see info about it whether or not you are logged in.
JB: Users will get what's going on if we do what Clay describes above. Do you tell users no results found? Are they told the info is there but you can't see it? CF: What does this look like if nothing in public?
JR: need to anticipate all cases...
DG: institution needs tools to create gateway-this is a kind of public content-need link to index or way to start simple to advanced search. If insitution wants a walled garden they can indicate that on their gateway.
JB: reference to institutions being able to allow public searches; assume opposite is true? E.g., Okay for info to come up on university site but don't want google to find it.
DG: Might have content that you want some people to see but not the world
LW: Security through obscurity approach. Want people to come to content via a path that you control / top level page.
CF: Just because there is a URL you can go to does not mean everything is browsable/searchable. Trying to promote idea of moving around / cataloging, filtering to find things. May be a way to share URLs w/out necessarily publishing it out to the world / browsable repository. May be a way of sharing to people outside system with a key that allows access.
DG: Examples in S2 of open URL but content not crawlable e.g., e-portolio. S3/OAE goal is to provide an open respository so need to help folks find it.
JB: Don't want info indexed by google--part of use case suggested above.
DG: IU personal pages not crawlable but instructor did not have space to publish research that was crawlable.
LW: Allow individual groups to determine whether site is crawlable
DG: Or a chunk of content--might go through various levels of privacy / publication
JB: Powerful if google indexed all course syllabi at all institutions (!)
AJ: Are there anonymous users and members of groups, nothing else? Anything in the middle? Can you give a set of people access to your content w/out creating a group?
LW: groups created at the drop of hat in new system: spontaneous. 
CF: multiple senses related to the term group. Should be easy to create a Group with purpose for interaction. Also true that sharing content with a set up people will not require setting up a Group--choose whether it's worthwhile to set up a Group
JS: Can you index a group so you can find it again? Avoid creating lots of groups and then never reusing them.
CF: Group minispecs coming up soon
LW: There is a way to see what groups you're in and manage
CF: Have people on this call seen any wireframes about how groups function?
JB: Saw early stuff...nothing in last few months
CF: Nice to circle back with wireframes that address mini specs; nice to see how process progresses and to help us picture what might be missing. Wasn't sure if we are there with groups specs yet.
LW: Q2 wireframes may not be caught up to minispecs but didn't define what part of specs would be implemented for  Q2
JB: Wireframes more tangible/motivating
RH: Would love to see wireframes (chat)
CF: Works in progress; prefer to keep discussions of  wireframes in context of specs
JB: How is browsing envisioned? Enter course site and look around?
CF: Browse entire system: whatever is available to you can be seen/found. Trying not to think about particular courses but what at top level of system can be viewed to create a delightful user experience.
LW: Directory can be populated with names of units in inst. / heirarchical. Might nav. to college of eng. then to computer eng. dept., then there see all courses that have public content listed. Can potentially browse to entities associated with any domain.
Robyn: Will univs want to replace public pages iwth Sakai pages
CF: possibly also OER respositories; a model is Open Michigan. They have all sites with public access available: instructor info, syllabus, course pages, etc. One instructor (Chuck S?)is encouraging interaction with people not enrolled in course. Some schools will leave this up to instructors to configure.
JB: Great to see core value of openness reflected / game changer.
DG: May search/find things w/out logging in but then get to place where if you log in you can do more such as comment. Need to support this w/out asking visitors to refind where they were (log in does not return you to top level)
LW: Thinks this is addressed but can't remember exactly where...covered in Eric story
JS: Would like an invitation to log in at appropriate points

JB: Will there be a default at the user level? Everything open/closed?
CF: Configurable at inst. level
AJ:  Need to make it easy to make all items of a specific type open or private. (e.g.,  Bob story: make everything open except tests & quizzes; or make  everything that does not have a license / copyright notice open)  
CF: Yes, templates good. e.g., everything defaults to public but close down selected items. 
JB: e.g., Course site start closed and open selected; opposite project site
RH: Might want to allow structure to be inherited heirarchically: permissions trickle down to sub components unless you set those sub components differently
JB: Only one bad experience will mess things up for lots of others
CF: Make things open w/out looking stupid (smile)
DG: Persistent visual reminders of openness status so intention is explicit
RH: Watermark or color / pervasive (shows up everywhere)
LW: Get a quick scan of status of everything connected with group
JB: FERPA check?
JR: Indicate that you want to share but also how you want to share
JH: Learning capabilities slot: should lenses group add?
LW: tremendous gaps in capabilities in this area
JH: related to user autonomy: users need to own their data and be responsible with it
JB: Lenses referenced under design facets in mini specs
JH/ others: learnig capabilities refers to spreadsheet?
LW: will add user autonomy items to lenses in specs
JB: Under use cases: add use case(s) for intitution in terms of setting access
LW/CF: Keep use case for anonymous user in Open 1
LW: Open 2 allows owner of info to browse space as anon. user to make sure it makes sense so scenario covered
JB: institutional reporting analytics (most popular search term, syllabus, etc.); part of reporting and tracking
JH: Encouragement to have status of reporting (how many looked at something) as part of experience with the activity/content itself; not pushed off into aggregation of results
CF: institutions will want to chose what to surface / highlight; wide array of preferences for what is shown; focus on simple fact of what gets top billing
LW: covered

  • No labels