...
got an update on Berkeley's resource availability
- still solidifying, but will likely be 1.75 FTE programmers (Josh and Ray) through early summer
- somewhat contingent on ongoing UCB deployment pressures, could mean time challenges at times
- also not yet clear how much time Daphne will have to devote given demands from other projects
- impetus for this re-prioritization: current UCB deployment pains
what completion time line (if any) comes with these new resources?
- would want to get a first phase done by June to deploy by Fall '06, perhaps just a simple
SIS integration to the CM API and not change worksite setup/site info the UI not too much (leave for next phase) - Ray made the point that connecting to/cleaning up the framework code is going to take a lot of work and might not be done in the first go-around
did a tour of the October meeting's initial requirements to refresh memories/bring people up to speed
- agreed that we need to standardize on definitions since there are different terms being used in the CM space (coordinate w/Mark N)
- e.g. examine the doc(s?) Mark N wrote on integration scenarios
- Marc emphasized the importance in allowing for changes to the requirements for this project based on finding from user research
- allowing for these finding does not negate that much of what we have in the requirements document reflects actual user needs
- however, the point was made that current requirements are more technical and born more from informal requirements gathering rather than observation and interviews of users, especially any faculty and TAs
- example was given from early findings from user research that "site set-up" from the faculty point of view has a lot to do with the management of content from term to term rather than just creating the course site alone
- Marc also made the point that doing as much comprehensive user research up front is crucial for the overall project
- recognized that there might be a first round set of UI specs, but need guard against those mockups eating up all the available time for good research
agreed Josh's paired down version of the October requirements are likely good "groupings" under which to place more granular requirements