Page Comparison

Weekly Meeting Agenda for August 8, 2006

In attendance: Daisy, Daphne, Duffy, Josh, Lydia, Marc

Notetaker: Josh

Agenda

• Review proposed milestones

  Note
  title Proposed Milestones
  first draft of each of the tools (Sept 1) final UI specs for Worksite Setup wizard changes and Home tool (Aug 8) Worksite Setup tool impl section selection/course structure screen find screen Home tool initial sync with SIS data, then ability to edit data toggle visibility of certain parts of page? specs for other tools (are we doing these for sure?) site-to-section(s) admin mapping tool (real or developer tool?) add site browser to Worksite Set-up for admins (part of Pinto+) second draft (Oct 1) SU, UCB, UoA local impls against SIS data usability testing of draft UI final version of Pinto+ (Oct 15) home tool reconciliation with SIS data? QA complete (Nov 1) Code merged into trunk (Nov 1)

• Review Home Tool mockup
• Review feedback pages http://issues.sakaiproject.org/confluence/x/0V
• follow-up on developer task agenda items from last week...need to discuss any more?
  • prep on site info
  • deeper work
    • group provider
    • cm chaining
    • API changes (Schedule object?)

Notes

Duffy: Reviewed proposed milestones for the release in November. Everyone agreed that they look good.
Marc: Still needs to finish mockups.
Josh: Concerned about home tool. How do we both display the CM data and allow users to display a custom home tool? This sounds like an alias to me.
Duffy: Maybe we just require users to use the hibernate impl? This can lead to data integrity problems.
Marc: We could allow the user to override every piece of metadata in the home tool. We could force the user to make changes via section info.
Josh: Jst use a html editor, and allow users to toggle b/t a totally custom home tool (with an initial html dump of the provided data) and the provided home tool.
Marc: It would be nice to expose some things and provide other things, so an instructor doesn't have to enter seciton info twice.
Marc: Lydia is assuming we're going against CM directly for now. We'll think about all of these other pathways and report back.
Duffy: Is Cm-Mapping tool done?
Josh: Yes, but it's a developer-only tool right now. Marc and Daphne will need to design a usable admin tool for local admins.
Duffy: What is "add site browser to Worksite Set-up for admins (part of Pinto+)"
Marc: It's a page that supports finding sites at the beginning of WS Setup. It already exists in the stealthed site management tool.
Duffy: Should we use this?
Josh: Let's try to stay out of the generic code. Ideally we'll use a helper tool, and not have to work in site info.
Marc: Daisy is working on Site info without any UI changes as a first cut. This will allow users to have a release where they can use their existing legacy CM provider.
Daisy: I'm having trouble mapping the new CM to the legacy CM service.
Josh: We'll need to wrap the data so we can convert back and forth. This is going to be difficult and risky, since the legacy code is so hard to work with.
Daisy: I think the UI will have to change, but with some assumptions we might make it work as is.
Josh: Rather than 10 at 10, let's just leave a chat channel open while we're working on CM. Whe you have questions, initiate an IM conference rather than IM'ing a single person.
Duffy: What do we do after the initial version of tools? Maybe that's when we should do CM impls to verify that this all works well. Marc also has usability testing of the draft UI.
Josh: We want to replace Site info, anyhow. Why usability test it?
Marc & Daphne: We can test the home tool, instead. We could do paper testing, too.
Duffy: We can tag the tools & services early and use that for the sakai release. We could get feedback in Atlanta.
Josh: Is the list of TAs from the site roles, or from CM? What if there are multiple sections, or only one mapped?
Duffy: It should come from CM API. If we have multiple sections mapped, we show a table of data. If it's just one section, display it like the current mockups.
All: OK, the home tool problem is understood. Let's let the designers do their work
Duffy: Everybody please review the "Community Review" pages in confluence.