Not only are you not alone, it's written into our expression of the design goals for the project [1]
But I think we need to distinguish the operational decision of how to handle things in 1.4 (QA efforts, default configuration and all the rest) from a discussion of how we're going to meet that goal by other means. I think that latter discussion belongs on the URG agenda, but it will take more time. ~Clay [1] https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/x/lYYpB (See #3 under 'functional emphases') PS I also have tended to like the carousel. I suggested to Sam at one point that we should be making the Open Carousel Environment. I think he threw something at me. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Nate Angell <[email protected]> wrote: > While I'm not against removing the widget from the build and putting it in > the widget library, I'd still like us to spend a bit of time talking about > how else we are thinking to address the goal of enabling people to make new > connections. > > As it stands now, I feel like the related content widgets do some of that > work, but do not surface to users in a very dramatic way. > > I'm assuming that I'm not alone in wanting to support a goal of enabling > people to make NEW connections with content, people, and experiences? > > = nate > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Lucy Appert <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Confession: I actually LIKE the carousel widget (I feel like this is the >> social equivalent of saying I read the NY Post for the news but anyway :-) ) >> and I can see it being used effectively in some of the cases we've got in >> our pilot. For example, we are going to have 800 student submissions to a >> portfolio prompt that we'd like for everyone in our program (around 2500 >> people) to be able to look at, recommend, comment on. The carousel widget >> would be a fabulous way to randomly surface the content in that collection >> of submissions. So even though it looks like it's dead for now, I'd love to >> keep the carousel widget around so that we could figure out ways to employ >> it in cases like this one. >> >> Lucy >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Clay Fenlason >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Eli Cochran <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > -1 on putting into the widget store. It is (IMHO) of marginal utility >>> > and I >>> > worry that it complex enough that supporting in the widget store will >>> > become >>> > a distraction when there is other work to be done. >>> >>> I don't understand this objection. Is there an expectation that the >>> team will maintain widgets in the widget library? I didn't think so, >>> and was assuming the widget library included enough information on >>> versioning, etc., that the end-deployer would have to take into >>> account. >>> >>> ~Clay >>> _______________________________________________ >>> oae-urg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-urg >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Lucy Appert, PhD >> Director of Educational Technology >> Liberal Studies Program >> New York University >> 726 Broadway, Rm. 677 >> New York, NY 10003 >> (212) 998-7168 >> [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> oae-urg mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-urg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > oae-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev > _______________________________________________ oae-dev mailing list [email protected] http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev
