Minutes - October 20, 2000
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.
