UX Walkthrough Meeting follow-up
daphne at media.berkeley.edu
Fri Aug 3 20:16:37 UTC 2007
We had another good meeting this morning to continue moving our
process definition forward. We spent the majority of time discussing
the idea/definition of "content management" as the scope of our
evaluations. There is some concern about the semantics of "Content
management" since many people then jump to thinking about 'Content
Management Systems' which is not what we mean here. But we decided
it was the best term (at this point) and we just need to be clear
about how we are using it. As expressed on the wiki, http://
+Page, "Content management is being loosely defined as authoring,
maintaining, organizing, viewing and sharing content...in this case
digital content." We had some particularly interesting conversations
about what this means for UPortal. Are we referring to the portlets
as content or is the content within the portlets the content, or? In
the end I think we decided both are and that different usage
scenarios will have us focusing on various aspects.
We also discussed the various user types affected. End users are
affected by their interaction with the product but should we also be
thinking about developers and designers who build tools (Moodle and
Sakai) and portlets (UPortal) that interact with and/or manage content.
In fleshing out a few UPortal scenarios, in scenario form, Paul
described how users probably don't think about portlets as individual
applications but rather the portlet as the application (so even
though on the backend the portal has no idea what is in the portlets
it holds, typical end-user expectations may differ). This was
interesting from a couple different aspects. First, this somewhat
parallels the "tool silo" problem we so often talk about with Sakai.
The other thing I found interesting is a reminder of how valuable it
is to focus on user scenarios (stories about real users getting real
work done) while we do this work. Without scenarios it is too easy
to make assumptions based on the way the systems are implemented that
then place constraints on our thinking. In other words, we could
find ourselves evaluating each tool or portlet in a silo which
wouldn't be as useful as understanding how users are required to move
between tools and portlets to complete activities. We agreed that as
we continue working on scenarios (defining and prioritizing) for
each product we'll refine the scope of the evaluation and improve our
understanding of what we mean by content management. Although the
specifics will vary across products we recognize the importance of
continually sharing and discussing between teams.
The 'to dos' for our next meeting on the 17th are:
- product evaluation teams will work on profiles and scenarios. So
expect to hear from product coordinators soon (hint, hint
coordinators :) ).
- individuals should look at at the reporting template on the wiki
and make comments, adjustments, etc. by the next meeting. I'll
assume no feedback means people are happy enough with it as a
starting point. As with everything else, we'll continue to improve
it as we go.
Thanks to all who participated! I found this a thought provoking and
enlightening conversation about the distinctions and subtleties of
the products themselves but also our work in thinking about cross-
cutting activities, interactions, models, navigation, etc.! As
always, please add, correct, etc to my recap as needed. I'll post
this message as archived meeting notes.
Have a great weekend!
Senior Interaction Designer
University of California, Berkeley
Educational Technology Services
daphne at media.berkeley.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fluid-work