So we have this page: http://opencast.org/matterhorn-adopters, where
adopters identify themselves as such to the community and provide some
details about their implementation. It serves a good marketing purpose,
but the Matterhorn Deployment details could be expanded to meet the need
you're discussing here as well.
I'm preparing to make a call to those adopters on this list to update
their entries, and to the community for other adopters to add
themselves. If you all think this format could be useful for capturing
and providing those implementation details, I can first modify this form
to enable it to collect more information. What do you think? If you like
the idea, what fields/options would you suggest we add?
Or is the information you're seeking too detailed to put here?
Michelle
On 2/9/2012 4:18 PM, Kevin Chan wrote:
Hi all,
I think what Nils is proposing makes sense. Aside from
separating/searching by "capture agent types" (screencast only, SD
video + screencast, HD video + screencast, etc.), it is also useful to
sort by (or provide a list of) institutions' capture agent setup.
For example, at UC Berkeley, we are likely going to have 3 different
types of capture agents - screencast only, SD video + screencast, HD
video + screencast - we would also provide additional "institutional"
info on why we have these setups, contact info, links to real life MH
distributions.
Admittedly, this approach works better for system wide applications
(we are a large school with this many concurrent/peak users - here is
our hardware setup), but I think having this view into how MH is
actually being implemented would be useful.
Finally, we might even piggy back other MH setup info (like
admin/worker/engage setup, storage setup, distribution channels) that
would prove useful to other potential adopters.
Kevin Chan
Operations Team
Educational Technology Services
UC Berkeley
On 2/8/12 10:22 AM, Nils Hendrik Birnbaum wrote:
Hey Folks,
as I'm working a lot with our documentation I found pages the were at
the first glance outdated. Today when I came home from office reading
some of the mails around the CA dropped frames - hardware - whatever
issues I got the opinion that outdated is the wrong description - we
wrote them from the wrong point of view and we use terms we all know
well but everybody has his own understanding what he means. It's one
of the major problems in requirements engineering (RE). To illustrate
it, please look at [1] (german server, english texts). (This cartoon
is an important element in most of the RE certifications)
I would like to keep the example of the CA. And we should ask
ourselves, what are the information the adopter has in his mind when
he goes to the reference hardware page and what are the pitfalls we
run into day by day.
In general he would say "I want to record lectures". In his mind he
got more specific ideas how this recording will join on and what the
result of the recording is. This thought will be affected for example
by an existing system that should be replaced, recordings he saw in
the wild on youtube or iTunes that could be recorded with Matterhorn
or any other system and so on.
Same with our day by day work. We talk about
*"successful recordings" (Framerate, resolution, size, devices, ...)
* Purchasable hardware (in North America, Europe, everywhere, ...)
So the language bites us (free translated by myself). We should talk
more precise, using a glossary ..
And my approach would be to create the landing page for our different
modules which bases on the adopters requirements. The first thing
that came into my mind is the quality of the video. That determines
the hardware specs so they can be grouped by 3 or 4 target qualities
and the adopter can watch examples and decide which hardware he needs.
This is an easy approach to safe time for answering questions on the
users list caused by different meaning.
Just my two cents and a small example, please give me some feedback
for kind of an e-mail brainstorming (I will nor answer this week to
stay away from a discussion, we could to this later on)
Regards
Nils
[1] http://interface-gmbh.de/Anforderungen_WAS_aus_Pj_wurde.JPG
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
--
Michelle Ziegmann
Educational Technology Services
University of California Berkeley
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
