Gotcha! Thanks...just wanted to make sure the original motivation for the (perhaps too lengthy) discussion was still addressed.
= nate On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Nicolaas Matthijs < [email protected]> wrote: > 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]<[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][email protected] > *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
