Hi Nate,
In terms of QA, I don't think there will be a lot of overhead for
1.4.0 as this widget was already present in the previous release and
hasn't had that many code changes during 1.4.0. The main reason for
asking the question was the fact that the carousel widget and its
orbiting widgets needed to be prepared for widget lazy loading, which
has now already happened, as well as this widget making 3 out of the 9
ajax requests on the landing page, which would make the landing page
slightly faster to load if removed.
Hope that helps,
Nicolaas
On 3 Jul 2012, at 05:30, Nate Angell wrote:
That all sounds very reasonable, but just checking back on the QA
overhead issue that began this thread...will there be significant
impact during the 1.4 release if we leave the carousel in place?
= nate
On Jul 2, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Nicolaas Matthijs <[email protected]
> wrote:
Thanks for all of this input.
I must confess that I like the carrousel widget as well, and I'm
happy to read that we all value the goals behind it. However, I
also think we agree that the way in which it has been conceived has
not been a success, mostly because of its position in the UI and
the rotating movement.
It was always the goal to design and build a new "Suggested stuff"
widget/experience for 1.5.0 when suggesting to remove the widget
from 1.4.0. Given this and the fact that the implementation has got
some implementation issues, I think it's probably best not to add
it to the Widget Library, especially because the data feeds it's
using will still be available.
However, given the responses on this thread so far, I think we
might as well keep the widget around until it's replaced by
something more suitable in 1.5.0. Institutions can still disable it
if they don't want it ...
Designs for the new widget will follow soon ...
Hope that helps,
Nicolaas
On 29 Jun 2012, at 08:15, John Norman wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the amount of discussion this is
generating. I probably don't understand the carousel well enough.
It seems to me the concept of a dashboard gadget that is drawing
your attention to content that is potentially of interest to you
(individually) is a good one. A key factor in user perceptions
will be how well it finds things that are of interest and that you
would not otherwise have found. However, good it is there will be
some people who don't want it and it should be possible for them
to disable/hide it. My guess would be that most reactions are
negative for one of two reasons; either they don't see it bringing
really pertinent content to their attention, or they don't like
the way it presents that pertinent content (on a conveyer belt). I
suspect that as our algorithms improve for identifying relevant
content, perceptions may change. But I'm not sure we have
resources (or even perhaps critical mass of content/activity) to
work on such improvement ATM.
Resource constrained as we are it seems reasonable to set this one
aside for a bit, but I don't think we should abandon it or the
concept that it seeks to address. If it is easy to move into the
widget space, that seems like it would be a good idea.
My 2c.
John
On 29 Jun 2012, at 07:42, Buchan, Janet wrote:
Confession: I didn’t like the carousel widget until Lucy outlined
their potential use of it & others the original design goals. I
am not sure I like the carousel as it is (CSU will disable the
carousel for our upcoming pilot) but would like to have that
functionality down the track. I support Nate’s comments:
>I find it a bit disconcerting that the people I've heard talk
about the carousel that are focused on new learning paradigms are
attracted to it, but have had trouble finding ways to fit it in.
If we spent the resources to take the carousel this far, the goal
it was attempting to serve must have been important enough to
warrant them. Just a vote on removing the carousel devalues the
resources we already spent if we don't also consciously address
why it was there and how that need fits into our planning.
>So, I say if we are going to make an eve-of-release decision to
remove a capability that was designed to meet a specific design
goal, that decision should be accompanied by a tangible process
to readdress that goal: reprioritize the goal (eg, downward) or
shift the focus to a new experiment.
Perhaps the reaction is to the carousel as a ‘push’ strategy,
unable to be controlled by the user, and users may want more
control which they may get through Explore features (sending
carousel it to the optional widget level).
(Of course many of our CLE users are still at the stage where
they don’t see a wiki or blog as personally relevant until it is
built into their learning experience!)
Janet
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Jon Hays
Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 2:28 PM
To: Sakai OAE User Reference Group
Cc: Bert Pareyn; Sakai OAE User Reference Group; [email protected]
@collab.sakaiproject.org
Subject: Re: [oae-urg] [oae-dev] Carrousel widget
I like your analogy Lucy. I think the reason it is so negatively
viewed by our users is that it just didn't make sense to them as
THE highlighted feature of a person's "personal" dashboard. It is
seen as a distraction rather than a source of anything personally
relevant.
Jon
Sent from my iPhone
On 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
_______________________________________________
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
