Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC)

1:30-3 pm - I.G. Greer Room 224

I. Welcome and announcements

Jeff Williams called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Members absent were Jeff Craven, Gabe Fankhauser and Len Johnson.. Steve Breiner, Erin Simmons, Ray Pittman, Pamela Graham, Tom Van Gilder, Charles Kesler, Matthew Mcnaney, Thomas Bennett, and Brian Brown were present as visitors.

II. Review of Minutes - September 8, 2000

Williams requested comments or corrections for minutes of the September 8 meeting. None were offered and the minutes were approved.

III. Discussion of Web Forum and Transition of Web Advisory Group

Williams offered a brief description and history of the events leading to the creation of the Web Advisory Group (WAG) and the subsequent creation of the Web Forum (WF). He then turned the discussion over to Lynne Lysiak who will act as liaison between the advisory group and the forum. She briefly stated that the purpose of the forum was to ensure wide participation in processes leading to decisions made about Appalachian’s web presence. She asked Brian Brown (Student Development) to relate the activities of the Web Advisory Group.

Brown stated that the intent of the two groups was to solicit input from a wide constituency in the university community and proceeded to clarify the three major goals delineated on the WAG web page (Interoperability, Ease of Use, and Consistency) and whom  efforts to implement them would affect. He also distributed copies of articles dealing with some of the major issues being address by the WAG.

IV. Presentation of PSP (Prospective Student Portal)

combined with

V. Next steps for the Web

Williams gave a brief presentation about preliminary design work done by PricewaterhouseCoopers on the proposed Prospective Student Portal for the UNC System. Williams stated that the Appalachian should be one of the next two institutions to deploy a PSP, Western Carolina having been the first.

According to Williams, Appalachian will have an opportunity to use the preliminary work by PWC to design its unique PSP identity, should we with to do so. He reiterated that the PSP targets prospective students and any push to develop a similar look and feel for Appalachian’s general web site will come from internal Appalachian constituents such as the Web Forum and Web Advisory Group.

Ed Pekarek (Computer Science) recommended that the PWC design be tested extensively to assure that it does not discourage users who may have slow internet connections. To this, Brian Brown stated that the WAG had suggested size limits (currently 70 kB) for all PSP pages to prevent the types of slow display problems frequently experienced by home users.

David Sampson (Student Services) asked about the relationship among Campus Pipeline, the PSP and the existing Appalachian web presence. Williams suggested that to address this type of issue was the charge of the Web Forum and Web Advisory Committee — ideas and suggestions about such interactivity should be instigated and investigated by that group.

Tom Van Gilder (Arts and Sciences) asked whether, if adopted, the PWC design would necessarily filter down to the web sites below the “top level” university pages. Williams replied that such decisions and recommendations would and should be made by groups like ITAC, Web Forum, and the Web Advisory Group, with input from the at-large university community.

Sampson expressed concern about support issues related to maintenance of pages on Appalachian’s web presence over the long term, particularly if W3C or ADA compliance led a need for duplication of information in “alternative” pages meeting those criteria. William Griffin (Foreign Languages and Literatures) expressed concerns about whether mandates for redesign of departmental sites might be required as a result of the “Web Standards” issue. Pekarek questioned who would be responsible for insuring that information on ‘alternative’ pages and their ‘originals’ would remain synchronized.

As liaison between the WAG and ITAC Lysiak asked the group to consider what were the most pressing issues to be considered during a pending PWC visit to Appalachian. Doug May (ACS) suggested that the three major goals submitted by Brown earlier in the meeting would be an appropriate starting point for the conversations with PWC. Pekarek reiterated concern that any adoption of standards for Appalachians web presence must solicit and result in a very broad-based collection of input from the Appalachian community as a whole — such input increasing greatly in importance if there is any expectation of promoting the “consistency” at various levels in the web hierarchy.
More discussion of these and related topics was deferred until the October 30 meeting of the Web Forum at 4:00 in Room 119 of Belk Library.

VI. Update on faculty training

Discussion of this item was deferred until late in the meeting to address other issues. Steve Breiner (Instructional Computing Services, ICS) gave a brief report on the status of the “faculty laptop” project. This academic year, laptops will be purchased for 100 faculty, who will be asked to attend a series of workshops prior to receiving the machines. Breiner stated that the changes proposed for the formerly offered, 3-day intensive program, arose from faculty comments and responses to questionnaire about how to improve the laptop/workshop project. Breiner further stated that, as was the case in previous offerings of this type, slots in the program would be allocated in proportion to college FTEs and  department chairs will be asked to submit participants’ names to the college deans, who will then make the final selections from their colleges

VII. Discuss mechanism for IT feedback

Doug May presented a brief report of the development of a regular “tier-2 support group” gathering which has led to suggestions that IT Services at Appalachian develop more pervasive and efficient mechanisms for obtaining feedback from users of these services. He further mentioned that some efforts are underway to devise questionnaires and other feedback methods, but asked that the ITAC membership assist in this effort by proposing ways to help ITS be more responsive to its clientele. Peter Wachs (Student Development) suggested that formal focus groups would be one way to address certain kinds of concerns. Pekarek suggested that ITAC, as a representative body, can be active in relaying information to IT Services and to ITAC. Richard Riedl (RCOE) mentioned that the College of Education and probably other areas, as well, have active technology advisory groups and that those existing resources should be more actively linked to the activities ITAC and IT Services. Sampson supported that contention when he stated that reports from multiple constituencies could only assist ITAC in appropriately addressing issues which necessarily affect multiple areas within the university.

May again solicited for suggestions from all interested parties in establishing effective communication channels between the IT areas and its users.

VIII. Update on Web for Faculty

Don Rankins (Registrar Office) announced that his office has offered some 15 workshops to help faculty learn to use the newly installed “Web for Faculty” (WFF) products from SCT. Rankins predicts that, over time, the WFF system will provide a stable and reliable platform for virtually all student information faculty might need in order to teach and advise effectively and efficiently. When asked about the purposes of WFF, he stated that the products would provide all of the functionality of SIS along with additional features as we learn to turn them on and use them. Additionally the product is capable of “real-time” updates, with new information being available as soon as it is entered, unlike information processed by the current SIS product. As the product matures along with Campus Pipeline (CP), the WFF features will eventually be fully accessible from within the CP environment as it becomes more stable and reliable.

IX. Discussion of Enterprise Directory Services

David Sampson asked that ITAC begin to consider the availability of enterprise-wide network directory services as a pressing need. He stated that without such a service, directory information is difficult or impossible to find, and is not accessible in any single location. In response, Williams informed the group about CP’s recent partnership with iPlanet (an Enterprise Directory Services engine vendor) to provide LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) services as part (either bundled or as an add-on) of the CP package. Williams stated that ITS was looking at the capabilities of the LDAP service and would focus on providing such services in the not-too-distant future. Williams also noted that this option is also being looked at as the possible basis for a “single point of authentication” mechanism, considered in ITS to be a relatively high priority issue.

X. Other Business

No other business was proposed, and the meeting adjourned.

Attending:

Lynne Lysiak, Belk Library Committee Facilitator
Tamara Swedberg, HRS
Erin Simmons, ITS
Tom Bennett, Belk Library
Steve Hopper, ITS
Patrick Echerd, Student Representative
Brian Brown, ESS
Beth Davidson, Sociology
Connie McVey, Internal Audits
Marcia Barnes, LES/ARTTA
Charles Kesler, ITC
Jeff Church, ICS
Greg Simmons, ICS
Bill Griffin, FLL

Lynne opened the meeting by presenting a brief history on the group’s initial incarnation as a smaller, less inclusive entity and the present decision to alter it’s composition by making it a subcommittee of ITAC. The facilitator then requested that everyone present at the meeting introduce themselves and identify the area they represent.

After introductions Lynne mentioned that she had spoken with Jeff Williams earlier in the day to request an update on the visit by Price-Waterhouse-Coopers (PWC). He had been able to tell her that Michael Handberg’s visit would be delayed from the end of November until December. It was agreed that much of the discussion about, navigation, look and feel would have to wait until the committee had obtained the information, and recommendations from Michael.

At present the group will explore issues and concerns associated with the ASU web presence and it’s future. Discussion was invited and the meeting began.

Steve Hopper provided an explanation of the Prospective Student Portal (PSP) for those who were unfamiliar with the project initiated by the University System. It was noted that each University would have control over it’s own look and feel within the portal while sharing common features, such as navigation, with the system. He noted that while the PWC consultant is here, he has been requested to conduct a study, including interviews and focus groups, to help us as a University as we continue to redefine our institutional look and feel. The logic being that as students move from prospective individuals to attending that the look and feel would remain relatively the same, providing a smooth transition. We have several products providing different points of entry at this time for different groups (Main pages, Webfor Faculty, and Pipeline) which all have different looks and navigation approaches. Lynne asked if there were any questions. None were posed.

Lynne opened the floor for general discussion of web based issues and requested that Steve bring the cd demo of the PSP for those who had not had a chance to view it.

An inquiry was made about offering workshops and support for staff and faculty on ADA compliance requirements and techniques. Jeff Church told the group that the Hubbard Center would be offering a workshop on ADA for faculty class pages. Jeff will be the facilitator for that workshop.

Bill Griffin suggested that a basic check list with fixes be circulated/posted.

Charles Kesler asked about a pointer page for ADA.

The group discussed training for using Bobby (CAST’s ADA web check tool) be included in ADA training sessions since initial exposure to the product could be overwhelming. It was agreed that communication lines be opened to the University community and kept “Up Front”.

Beth Davison initiated a discussion on what means might be employed to request funds on a University level to hire qualified personnel to provide support in all areas of web development/ADA compliance, etc. at all levels. Steve Hopper offered a position differentiation between page-masters and webmasters. Brian Brown noted the shades of gray between training and support providing a greater skills base. It was asked “who does it?” — Training, Support.

Bill Griffin noted that he had been the webmaster for FL and was beginning to feel overwhelmed with the amount of maintenance and adaptations increasingly required.

Beth Davison wished to go on record as saying that she was advocating each college hire a webmaster for their main pages. Charles Kesler asked if anyone knew how many people were maintaining pages full time. Brian Brown noted that the group was identifying a problem that had existed for a long time. .. That the university needed tools for updating and identifying old pages. Tamara Swedberg pointed out to the group that there would be some groups/people who would be happy to turn their pages over to a webmaster but also many constituents would be reluctant to release that part of their jobs.

Lynne; appropriate levels of staffing.

Charles how far down the road is ITS in it’s use of .asp pages. Steve/Erin in use now, extensive in some areas.. Erin noted that server pages can be made ADA compliant but it is difficult and other means of providing information should be available It was asked if ITS could provide ADA training and support. Erin is already building it into her workshops for Composer and Dreamweaver. Jeff Church is (as stated earlier) providing training for Faculty. Support is always available, but resources are limited.

Beth… PR , recruiting, university priority to hire webmasters

Tamara Is there a way to identify webmasters campus wide? Who is doing the work and what kinds of support do they need?

Steve there is also a need to identify servers across campus.

Bill there is not the possibility to speak with one voice when we are so diverse.

Tamara For communication purposes should we not identify the who is involved in each area?

Tom Bennett In response to Steve and Tamara. I maintain the server in the library but others do the pages.

Jeff Church on faculty. There are students who will be doing many pages. He talks to faculty about why it is a bad idea to pass their pages off to students. If faculty are not doing their own pages sometimes they have unrealistic expectations about what can be done in a limited time frame. If they can’t get someone who knows what they are doing, or learn it themselves, they need to think about doing less. Just because a grad student has been making corporate web pages somewhere does not qualify them to be a web master for a faculty project. He suggests that faculty/and university as a whole back off and evaluate. All agreed there needed to be checks and balances.

If we knew all the server administrators we could have each run a log to find out when pages have been worked on and who is doing the work. Bill brought up templates. He noted that in a private college in New York Templates and other restrictions were required and has a concern that this will happen here at all levels. If so he does not have time as a faculty member and web administrator to apply them to all the FL pages. If this scenario happens, can someone else apply them for him?

Lynne reminded the group that we are just looking at recommendations and resources. That we should not get too carried away into possible policy areas.

Summary — Lynne The discussion has revolved around centralized and decentralize models (Steve warned against attempting to centralize the whole university community, other’s agreed )

We need to know: 1- who is involved 2- what support is available 3- what model of support do we want 4- staffing issues 5- look and feel issues — waiting on Price Waterhouse Coopers consultant. Next meeting Nov. 30 4-5pm

Last notes by Patrick Echerd (student rep) consistency is the key for students.

1:30-3 pm - I.G. Greer Room 224

1. Welcome and announcements
2. Review of Minutes - July 14, 2000
3. Computer Security Policy
4. Update on  Preferred Internet Service Provider / ASU Modem Use Policy
5. Update on Campus Pipeline
6. Update on Student Lab Printing
7. Other Advisory Groups - ITAC role?
8. Update on Human Resource System Search
9. Web for Faculty
10. Other Business