Home‎ > ‎Meetings‎ > ‎Meeting Archives‎ > ‎

minutes-2012-02-16

Announcements, future topics, and ideas session

  1. Managed print plan - Erik
    • Difference between this and Creative Communications offering
    • We will be inviting the folks responsible for the potential engagements to present to computing directors
        2.  Costing Study Fallout – Erik
    • Identified the next steps/obstacles to be addressed in a potential “pilot”
      • Institutional Will
      • IT Governance
      • Funding
    • They are planning to launch the next phase – we will be engaged through a subgroup of computing directors. E-mail Erik if you want to take part. 

Comments on current CDW-G desktop/laptop contract with Purchasing:

We are in year 2 of this plan, they would like to have comments on how well it has gone.
  • Repair issues, taking too long to get the equipment back (NBD is not really NBD)
  • Sales people do not seem to know what it takes, and interest in resolving issues is low.
  • HP desktops and laptops cheap…but we are getting what we pay for. They fall apart too quickly.
  • We have begun moving to Lenovo for laptops. Better equipment, better pricing.
  • Dell also appears to be providing better quality and/or pricing.
  • The Contract states that these should be above consumer grade, but that’s what we feel like we are getting.
  • CDW’s server offerings also appear to be sub par. We don’t have a contract with them, but does not bode well.
  • CDW-G as a reseller as opposed to the manufacturer has created an extra layer of hassle.
  • Business review coming up in May, they will send info to computing directors to enable our participation.
  • Should we do a comparison to determine who has actually switched over.
  • Problem: STF mandating use of this contract for any proposals. 
Discussion about leasing IT gear as an alternative for hardware refresh issues.
 

E-Text Pilot:

  • Project Goals - Handout
    • Give access to high quality educational resources. 
    • Enable new tools for teaching and Learning
    • Evaluate Pilots to learn how best to support
    • Best Practices
    • Drive down the costs.
  • Evaluation and Assessment
    • 2 vendors currently under evaluation
      • CourseLoad
        • Simple design
        • Developers from Angel
        • From a Course standpoint
        • More contextual tools
        • More resolution on notes, tagging, on page
        • Search a little less optimal. 
        • Visually scan between pages (remembering look of page)
        • Can also print out notes. 
        • Sharing doesn't usually happen through e-mail, but collaborative notes can be shared easily. 
        • Required to use textbook 
        • Can upload other content (like PowerPoint docs) and annotate
      • CourseSmart
        • Clean design
        • Started by publishers, look at it from a " Book" standpoint
        • Graphics represented in full color, print version same as digital version
        • Table of contents on menu bar
        • Search features are strong
        • Note taking function for pages (can be printed)
        • Sharing for pages (links by e-mail
        • Focused on student choice whether to have virtual textbook or not. 
      • Comments:
        • Interoperability between textbook readers? 
          • Not that we have seen.
        • Is the dream to pick a single platform? 
          • It's still really early in the market, vendor offerings are expected to change. 
          • Nobody has emerged with everything we wanted.
          • No intention to go into a permanent contract with either, will probably go with multiple. 
          • Other schools are not doing it this way. 
          • These two vendors will change over this time, but they may not be the successful vendors. 
        • Students will expect to be able to use this across all devices or consoles (web page, kindle, etc.). 
          • It's not there. We are focusing on browser based, because it can be ubiquitous. 
          • It's worth noting that publishers are scared. 
          • We are watching a group at educause which is focused on reviewing the etext question. 
    • How to target broad adoption?
      • They are recruiting for summer and fall course pilots
      • They do offer one on one demos as requested. Usually for faculty that wish to adopt, e-mail them. 

UW-IT supported Cloud Storage for Students, STF proposal:

  • Problem: All the virtual computing structures available across campus do not do a good job of facilitating storage moving from one architecture to another. 
  • They looked at a lot of the free cloud storage solutions like skydrive, dropbox, googledocs, but found the limitations to be onerous (slow, local requirements, etc.)
  • They considered a local file server solution, but the same problem from moving data department to department remained. 
  • Looking at STF funded UW-IT provided solution with partnership to shared across many other units on campus. 
    • Leverage CIFS or SFTP as mount points. 
    • UWNetID management console will allow students to manage the quotas in this space (this is pretty slick!). 
    • This would create a drive automatically mounted at login. 
    • Facilitates snapshots for data backup and recovery. 
    • Faculty and Staff will soon see a different proposal that will roughly be doing the same thing. 
    • Might enable roaming profiles
  • UW-IT provides backups, monitoring and central server hardware support. 
    • Reliance on STF for continued funding is a risk. Possible that they will not over time.
      • Dependence on UWWI authentication. 
        • Naming conventions may transition to something more standard (they are proposing an "H:" drive) 
          • This was piloted in statistics classes last summer. 
            • They are only proposing this for a one year commitment
              • Questions:
                • Direct departmental IT access to user files for support. 
                • You can only tie yourself to 1 support org (UW-IT)
                • Quotas, how to increase, how big is default (5 GB as base, optional up to 10 GB speculated)?
                • This proposal was not limited to Seattle (Bothell and Tacoma students included)
              • This appears to be unanimously supported by those attending meeting. 
                • Should we comment on this proposal as an organization (Compdirs)?
                  • They will e-mail proposal to Mark Baratta or Ron Kline.  (See StudentFileStorageProposal.pdf, below.)

                Review of meeting and close

                Next meeting will be Thursday, 15 March 2012, 2PM, Allen Library Petersen room
                Č
                Ċ
                Mark Joseph Baratta,
                Feb 29, 2012, 2:18 PM
                Comments