Thursday, February 26, 2004

  1. Establish agenda items for Friday
  2. Percent of existing system encompassed by CTNG
  3. UM: 95%
  4. IU: 30%
  5. MIT: 50%
  6. Stanford: 80%
  7. The “Big Missing”
  8. Lack of hierarchy
  9. Class – section (send announcements)
  10. Cross listed
  11. Section awareness
  12. Ability to create multiple instances of single tool within course container
  13. Does the solution lie in Uportal framework?
  14. Rethink public/private access
  15. Currently on case by case basis and should be integrated into a role structure so it can be more granular and you can set permissions at any level
  16. does this affect performance
  17. Allow anyone into the site and restriction determined by author
  18. explicitly allow
  19. explicitly deny
  20. Section sign up
  21. List control for multiple semesters / versioning
  22. Roles, roles, roles (groups/permissions)
  23. What is a group?
  24. Distributed
  25. Ability to lock down each part of application based upon roles
  26. Hierarchical
  27. can exist above class level (Stanford)
  28. Ad hoc
  29. Lots of variants required
  30. create new roles
  31. alter existing roles
  32. delegation of roles (authors)
  33. Thoughts
  34. Don’t want to release 1.0 and bolt missing parts in because that is poor design
  35. Are there things in CTNG that send us in the wrong direction?
  36. Basic assumptions are different
  37. MIT looking at Fall 2005 not concerned with Fall 2004 release and deploying to large number of faculty
  38. We must consider 1.0 user base when dealing with thinking about 2.0 – 1.0 and 2.0 cannot be polar opposites as there will be an installed user base
  39. Release skeleton 1.0 and add on from there?
  40. What about an open source forum which “has it all” rather than fixing the forum in CTNG and trying to make it work? Should we start over?
  41. WYSIWYG editor never existed, is plugged in and was easy because there was no preconceived notion of how it “should” perform based on existing implementation.
  42. Use existing CTNG and fix as much as possible in 3 months?
  43. Focus on Navigo – much less to fix

Friday, February 27, 2004

  1. Topics
  2. Tools needs identified
  3. Toll by tool
  4. Functionality (existing / lacking)
  5. What outputs (problems/outcomes) share with Board
  6. List of (i.e. 5 thinkgs to do to CTNG/Sakai 1.0)
  7. Position paper on rationale
  8. ADA
  9. 508
  10. The tools team stance/view
  11. What is our team process
  12. Interaction, voting, recommendation
  13. Timeline/dates
  14. How we attack the tool research
  15. Process, institution involved
  16. Straw man approach / need for existing tools to show
  17. Our sets plus exemplars of what exists
  18. Communication
  19. Methods, systems, location, process
  20. Sharepoint, project server
  21. KB
  22. Presentation
  23. Follow up
  24. Glossary / dictionary of terms
  25. Begin creation
  26. Format
  27. Style guide
  28. Tools definitions, formats, layouts
  29. Reflects terms in glossary / dictionary
  30. Tools/dev interaction
  31. XML tag descriptor
  32. Navigo design process
  33. Functional requirements
  34. Mockups
  35. Iterative process
  1. Offline Tasks
  2. Communication
  3. Existing tools
  4. Caitlin/Rob to establish sharepoint/project site
  5. Daphne to create contact list and post to list
  6. Navigo template/method for functional requirement gathering (Caitlin)
  7. Navigo site access
  8. Caitlin sent message to all on how to create guest accounts and access Navigo

Tools Identification / Organization

  1. Gateway
  2. Ability to configured by institution (tools, iframes, nav bar)
  3. Access to public courses (public/guest, search)
  4. Help (user guide, support, kb)
  5. Link to login (authenticate)
  6. Login
  7. Authentication (ease of account creation)
  8. Authorization
  9. Determine identity (if needed)
  10. Browser detection
  11. Ability to browse to class (from gateway or URL) then login or login then browse to class
  12. My Workspace
  13. List of sites
  14. Ability to easily move between them (current and old)
  15. Dashboard View of all courses (what has changed)
  16. Mail
  17. Announcements
  18. Other applicable tools
  19. Course site access control (link to join/unjoin)
  20. Set user preferences
  21. Profile (mobile device)
  22. Personal tools
  23. Resources (specific to user)
  24. Hierarchical document view with associated metadata.
  25. Schedule – synoptic view of all site schedule items
  26. News – as set by user
  27. Announcements (may be handled by dashboard)
  28. Class/Project Site Home
  29. Template, adhoc, redirect content
  30. Design/functionality similar to Workspace dashboard but specific to site
  31. Class/Project site information
  32. Customizable by site owner
  33. dashboard appearance, behavior (tools usage impacts dashboard not vice versa)
  34. Users present
  35. Schedule
  36. Calendar showing schedule items (events, assignments, resources, etc.).
  37. Announcements
  38. Shared information for specific time, group and priority.
  39. Resources
  40. Hierarchical document view with associated metadata.
  41. Ability to pull (view, access) from various repositories.
  42. Discussion
  43. Forum tool for asynchronous threaded/non-threaded communication.
  44. Assessment (Navigo)
  45. Anything that asks a question, anticipates a response and can link to a gradebook.
  46. Chat Room
  47. Allows synchronous communication and the ability to archive.
  48. Drop Boxes
  49. Private folder between instructor and student.
  50. Email Archive
  51. An archive of all messages sent to true email address created for the site. Notifications to recipients are sent from the site to true e-mail addresses.
  52. Web Content
  53. Displays web content (URL, RSS feed, etc.).
  54. Help
  55. Support documentation.
  56. Administrator Tools
  57. A set of tools available to various roles which allow varying levels of access to the entire application (reporting and modification).
  58. Gradebook
  59. A tool for managing grades.
  60. Parking Lot
  61. 2 ways to access, drop, add sites
  62. Dashboard needs definition
  63. Synoptic views – also add new items? *Only include those tools used in site.
  64. Able to edit content where you view it? (ex. site home)
  65. Specific functionality in schedule
  66. Calendar and connection to other tools with dates
  67. Events – reoccurring
  68. Print & pdf
  69. Impact of calendar
  70. Notification – announcements
  71. Resources
  72. need IP management component
  73. Permission (access at file and folder level)
  74. Business logic
  75. Types – folders, files, URLs, text
  76. Interface with digital asset management systems
  77. Email from the site capability
  78. Web content tool – needs more granularity
  79. Syllabus
  80. Event sign-up
  81. Logging/participant tracking/statistics on site usage (reporting) site level & stats system wide

Wrap up items

  1. High level areas with definition
  2. To do
  3. Each institution review and create gap analysis (09 March 04)
  4. UM create gap analysis between Navigo and CTNG assignments/UM Lessons (09 March 04)
  5. 12 March 04 Sakai Board Meeting (Boston)
  6. Rob to present detailed gap analysis
  7. Sakai 1.0 specs
  8. Prioritization offline (22 March 04)
  9. each institution assigns priority 1, 2, 3 (evenly) for each item
  10. returned by Rob on 23 March 04)
  11. Assignment of first attempt at functional requirements (22 March 04)
  12. First draft of functional requirements to Rob for consolidation (27w March 04)
  13. Face to face meeting (29-30 March 04 UM)
  14. OUTCOME
  15. Complete 1.0 version of functional requirements to be presented to Chuck
  16. Agenda for UM meeting (29-30 March 2004)
  17. ADA items
  18. Style guide (post->review)
  19. Demonstration of design process
  20. KB systems /role/interaction
  21. Plan the next phase