Minutes - February 9, 2001
1:30-3 pm - I.G. Greer Room 224
I. Welcome and announcements
The meeting was called to order and the membership greeted by Jeff Williams at 1:35 PM. Members absent were Jeff Craven, Patrick Echerd, Gabe Fankhauser, Don Rankins, and Dick Riedl. Steve Breiner (ITS � Instructional Computing), Brian Brown (Electronic Student Services), Tom Van Gilder (Arts and Sciences), Steve Hopper (ITS � Applications Support), Erika Hudspeth (ITS � Applications Support - Webmaster), Mick Kreszock (Instructional Technology Center), Tom Leonard (University Advancement), Martin Moore (ITS � Systems), Ray Pittman (Systems & Special Projects), Tamara Swedberg (Human Resources), Ann Viles (Belk Library), and Brian Williams (Admissions) were present as visitors.
II. Review of Minutes � January 12, 2001
Minutes of the January 12 meeting were approved by the membership with only a minor amendment.
III. ASU Website Review Process
Jeff Williams recapped the recently begun process (Appalachian Website Review Process, AWRP) for reviewing the entirety of Appalachian’s presence on the World Wide Web and distributed a proposed timeline for beginning the process. This process was originally motivated by the UNC System arrangement with PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC) to design and develop a “prospective student portal (PSP)” for use across the UNC system. Williams noted, however, that the money originally allocated to fund the process is essentially “on hold” pending financial developments within the state. He stated that the basic design and preliminary implementation, which were developed at Western Carolina University (WCU) and which have received very positive reviews, were available for internal inspection on through Appalachian’s intranet. With the clear importance and increasing use of the Appalachian web site, Williams stated that, despite the funding loss, Appalachian would proceed with a comprehensive review, using as a framework the model review process developed at WCU.
In answer to a question from Mick Kreszock (ITC) as to whether the ultimate result of the review process was to build an Appalachian portal that would replace Campus Pipeline, Williams stated that there were no preconceptions about the ultimate recommendations or results of the review process. Williams then proceeded to outline the proposed AWRP, as suggested by the Web Advisory Group, beginning with wide ranging, open discussions with all appropriate stakeholder groups. ITAC itself, being the campus’ representative technology group, would be, in effect constitute the “core” review group. Williams then asked that the ITAC membership inform the appropriate constituents of the importance of this process and of their participation in it. According to the timeline, the first series of stakeholder meetings would be complete by the end of February and subsequently the ideas expressed in those meetings would provide a framework for future categorization and refinement of the important points addressed. He further stated that the purpose of the first meeting series was only to begin to what content and functionality were important to the Appalachian Web presence, and should not address so-called “look and feel” issues. He surmised that the content decided on as important to the site must drive the eventual definition of an appropriate “look and feel.” He went further to state that once content issues are defined and clarified, a process of usability testing would be implemented as an integral step in formulation of the site’s “look and feel.”
David Sampson (ESS) then asked about how open to possibilities was the review process. Williams reiterated that there were no preconceived notions about what might be the outcomes of the AWRP, once completed. Sampson then suggested that the availability of a pre-build PSP and its technological underpinnings might significantly affect the complexity of the eventually defined Appalachian web presence. Brian Brown (ESS) asked what licensing implications would arise through use of the preliminary PSP design, to which Williams answered that the UNC system would own all rights to any products arising out of the PSP or Appalachian’s review process. Williams also stated that the actual coding tools would be selected once the content paths and needed functionality had been defined.
Mick Kreszock then expressed support for the proposed order in which various issues would be addressed in the timeline distributed by Williams. Williams once again asked the group to notify constituents about the upcoming review process and that ITAC initially keep focus on content, rather than “look and feel” issues. Williams then asked Erika Hudspeth (University Webmaster) to demonstrate the preliminary design built by PWC and WCU. Hudspeth asked ITAC to review the categories of users for any glaring omissions. Len Johnson (Human Resources Services, HRS) suggested an “Employment” page. David Sampson suggested a functional listing (the displayed site organized according to constituency. Steve Breiner (ICS) agreed with Sampson and suggested that a user-selectable option to view the site by function might make it much more usable for employees and teachers than one organized by constituency alone. Kreszock noted the importance of using plain English as the language of choice in order not to confuse users unfamiliar with common university-oriented jargon. Several in the group expressed the desire for simplicity in page design and associated language. Peter Wachs (Student Development) mentioned that there are university sites (e.g., VPI) that allow per-user customizations of settings and organization.
Williams then asked the membership if there were specific functional categories that should be included on then site. Bill Griffin (Foreign Languages and Literatures) suggested a “find faculty or student” function. Tamara Swedberg (HRS) suggested that a “tabbed” home page would allow for a number of potentially useful interfaces to be selected by the user, perhaps with short-cut menus “cascading” from the tabs. Brian Brown cautioned that such things as cascading menus or “live” tabs require Java or JavaScript applications and may either (a) require that users change browser settings or (b) not work with all browsers.
Williams then suggested that the kinds of detailed suggestions being mentioned are precisely the kind of information targeted by the upcoming stakeholders’ review meetings and suggested that those meetings would allow for more detailed discussions of such issues. He referred to the AWRP timeline and stated that, although not all of ITAC would be able to attend the initial meetings, those would provide a good starting point, with some preliminary information available before the next ITAC meeting.
Sampson requested that meetings associated with AWRP generally provide examples of “best” practices with regard to design and functionality, to allow for a knowledgeable discussion of the issues involved. Williams stated that he hoped that the ITAC membership would be able to invest a 5 to 6 hour commitment to the process over the next month. In conclusion, Williams again asked the ITAC membership to be sure to inform constituents about the AWRP process and to encourage participation in their respective areas.
Williams then asked for a sense of whether ITAC was comfortable with the process being implemented as the AWRP. Several ITAC members nodded heads in agreement and there were no comments suggesting dissatisfaction with the process.
IV. Other Business
Kreszock mentioned that the ITC was seeing increasing numbers of requests to take over management and production of university-related web sites. Such requests, when ITC can honor them are becoming a significant drain of resources, particularly as regards ITC’s student workforce. Lynne Lysiak (Belk Library) mentioned that the issue of website creation and maintenance was an item drawing significant discussion in the “Web Forum” meetings she coordinates. Kreszock noted that the ITC does not mind receiving requests, if the trend continues ITC’s resources will be severely stretched.
Breiner complained about the lack of proactivity on the parts of the ITAC membership. He recounted the numerous requests by Williams for agenda items and issues and lamented the dearth of responses the requests have, so far, generated. He suggested that many complaints he has heard regarding decisions made without input from affected stakeholders might be avoided were groups like ITAC to take active roles when asked to do so.
Kreszock mentioned that the ITC is currently offering to the university community demonstrations of interactive kiosks for information distribution.
V. Adjournment
With no other business noted, the meeting adjourned at about 3:10 PM.
