On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Daphne Ogle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there someplace we can see the current design thinking for assignments2?
I think I'll be steadily working this into Confluence over the course of the next two weeks, but I can start with some high-level points: - the design has taken on more of a role-based separation (or, better put, the families of common tasks associated with certain roles). - the assignment functionality naturally orbits around 4 gravitational centers: 1) Assignment authoring (and related management) 2) Submission handling (and providing feedback/grading) 3) The "To-Do" list dashboard view for submitters (as well as returned feedback) 4) The individual submission itself * We find that faculty personae tend to be oriented around #1 and #2, in that order, though a significant fraction of them deal only with #1 * Teaching Assistant/Tutor personae tend to be oriented around #2 and #4, in that order. * Student Personae tend to be oriented around #3 and #4, in that order. The legacy assignments tool tries to do all of this from a basecamp of more or less a single assignments tabular listing. I think the new structure we're pursuing allows us to both do more and do less - provide more pertinent information across all the contexts, and yet to limit the amount any particular context throws at you. It also takes pains to address a class of user that's really only been an afterthought with the legacy tool - the submission "reviewer" as distinct from the assignment author. In the simplest case these are the same people, but in many courses (especially the larger ones) they are entirely different sets of people. A further resultant benefit is greater transparency of the submission-feedback workflow, to each respective audience (or families of tasks). ~Clay _______________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list [email protected] http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
