Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC)

Faculty expectations (Staff Council Meeting, March 16, 2004)

Workstation/Access

• Access from your office to an adequate workstation (3 year replacement)
• Access to high speed network connection
• Access to adequate local storage and backup media devices
• Access to adequate server based storage (250MB)
• Access to campus information from remote locations
• Expect dial-up access to those who don’t otherwise need access (questions raised on this)
• Provide transparent access to resources
• Wireless access on campus

Software/Tools

• Access to standard (current, core) software to perform tasks
• Access to department specific software
• Access to enterprise email system with adequate quota
• Access to similar setup for home use?
• Access to administrative services and tools for managing information

Support

• Access to training and support
• Access to consultation related to teaching and learning with technology
• Adequate, timely and streamlined process to services
• Access to tools to do their job well
• Access to service directory (what’s available)
• Expanded help desk support (before 8:00, after hours, match class schedule hours)
• Distance learning services and coordination with campus services
• Access to administrative services and tools for managing information
• Full integration with voice, data, email, etc

Classroom

• Classroom resources (smart technology, integrated with typical tools)
• Classroom equipment purchase, maintenance and support
• Classroom access to preparation materials on faculty workstation in their office
• Remote facilities must have same access to resources as on campus
• Computer testing facility (available to classes)
Other considerations and Notes:

• Platform neutral access / purchase decisions
• Collaborate with all departments for group purchases of common software
• Process to consider requesting new resources, tools, etc
• Open to new ideas, processes
• Process to review, comment on changes before they occur

Student expectations (just started this list)

• Reliable, efficient access to services and resources
• Access to software necessary to complete class assignments
• Access to student lab computers to perform standard tasks
• Access to consultation and support in student labs
• Expect secured remote access

Staff expectations

• Staff working the front desk at the Broyhill Inn & Conference Center do not have access to e-mail or to the Internet.
• Callers are not getting through to the Helpdesk or telephone messages are not returned.
• It would be helpful for evening students to be able to access the Helpdesk until 6:30 p.m. Perhaps the Helpdesk could be available from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturdays. Many distance education students rely on the Library for assistance.
• Although a 24 hour lab was requested, few students use it in early morning.
• The Training Center does not offer many advanced programs but mostly basic.
• Provide online tutorials.
• Develop an online survey for the campus community to provide input: on-campus, distance, others constituencies.
• Ask staff that you represent for their input.
• Give new staff or those who move to new areas quicker access to those services that are needed to perform their respective jobs.
• Physical Plant and Food Service employees continue to have difficulty accessing computer services. Many employees try to access limited numbers of stations. In some instances, using the stations is not considered relevant to the job or not viewed as an on-the-job activity. Many are missing vital information regarding employment and/or benefits.
• Send teams into areas to work with employees who do not use computers.
• Encourage employees to use computer labs.
• Encourage supervisors to give employees access to computers.
• Computers can be obtained from the computer �”Boneyard.”
• Form a task force: representation from ITAC, staff, HRS, and Bob Schaeffer

Faculty Expectations

Workstation/Access

• Access from your office to an adequate workstation (3 year replacement?)
• Access to high speed network connection
• Access to adequate local storage and backup media devices
• Access to adequate server based storage (250MB)
• Access to campus information from remote locations
• Expect dial-up access to those who don’t otherwise need access (questions raised on this)
• Provide transparent access to resources
• Wireless access on campus

Software/Tools

• Access to standard (current, core) software to perform tasks
• Access to department specific software to perform task
• Access to enterprise email system with adequate quota
• Access to similar setup for home use?
• Access to administrative services and tools for managing information

Support

• Access to training and support
• Access to consultation related to teaching and learning with technology
• Adequate, timely and streamlined process to services
• Access to tools to do their job well
• Access to service directory (what’s available)
• Expanded help desk support (after hours, match class schedule hours)
• Distance learning services and coordination with campus services
• Access to administrative services and tools for managing information
• Full integration with voice, data, email, etc

Classroom

• Classroom resources (smart technology, integrated with typical tools)
• Classroom equipment purchase, maintenance and support
• Remote facilities must have same access to resources as on campus
• Computer testing facility (available to classes)

Other considerations and Notes:

• Platform neutral access / purchase decisions
• Collaborate with all departments for group purchases of common software
• Process to consider requesting new resources, tools, etc
• Open to new ideas, processes
• Process to review, comment on changes before they occur

Student expectations (just started this list)

• Reliable, efficient access to services and resources
• Access to software necessary to complete class assignments
• Access to student lab computers to perform standard tasks
• Access to consultation and support in student labs
• Expect secured remote access

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.