• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Web 2.0 And The Institutional Web
 

Web 2.0 And The Institutional Web

on

  • 3,048 views

Brian Kelly, UKOLN, facilitated a session on "Web 2.0 And The Institutional Web" at a "Scottish Web Folk" meeting held at the University of Strathclyde on 4 August 2006. ...

Brian Kelly, UKOLN, facilitated a session on "Web 2.0 And The Institutional Web" at a "Scottish Web Folk" meeting held at the University of Strathclyde on 4 August 2006.

See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/scottish-web-folk-2006-08/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,048
Views on SlideShare
3,019
Embed Views
29

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 29

http://www.techgig.com 28
http://10.150.200.57 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Web 2.0 And The Institutional Web Web 2.0 And The Institutional Web Presentation Transcript

    • Web 2.0 And The Institutional Web Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath Email [email_address] UKOLN is supported by: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/scottish-web-folk-2006-08/ Acceptable Use Policy Recording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, Blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised. This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) scottish-web-folk-2006-08 tag used in del.icio.us
    • Contents
      • Web 2.0 / E-Learning 2.0 / Library 2.0
        • It's great
      • Organisational barriers
        • Technology is immature
        • Legal risks
        • It's too costly
      • Addressing the barriers
        • Understanding our culture
        • Risk assessment and risk management
        • Deployment strategies
      • Exploiting Our Strengths
        • The IWMC
        • The Scottish Web Folk community
    • Web 2.0, E-Learning 2.0 & Library 2.0
      • We know how:
        • Blogs allow our users to easily create content and share their views
        • Wikis allow communities to easily collaborate in creation of content
        • Social networking services (e.g. del.icio.us, Flickr, etc) allow communities to share resources (e.g. bookmarks, photographs, …)
        • Syndication technologies (e.g. RSS, Atom) allow communities to be easily repurposed ('mashups')
        • Messaging technologies (e.g. MSN, Jabber, Skype) allow people to communicate
      • And this relates directly with our learning & teaching & research activities
      Web 2.0 So we will all be deploying these services within our institutions. Are we?
    • Takeup Of New Technologies
      • The Gartner curve
      Developers Rising expectations Trough of despair Service plateau Enterprise software Large budgets Mainstream… Early adopters
      • Chasm
      • Failure to go beyond developers & early adopters (cf Gopher)
      • Need for:
        • Advocacy
        • Listening to users
        • Addressing concerns
        • Deployment strategies
      This talks looks at approaches for avoiding the chasm
    • The Barriers
      • There are barriers to the deployment of Web 2.0:
        • It's scary: I've just mastered CSS; we've just spend a lot of money on a CMS; …
        • It's immature: I've heard it all before (XML, Semantic Web, …). This is just the latest hype.
        • There are legal risks: Copyright infringement; data protection; protection of minors; …
        • Infringement of guidelines: Web 2.0 infringes our AUP; accessibility legislation; e-Gov legislation; ..
        • Institutional inertia: We'd like to do it but we have large existing systems; reluctant colleagues; …
      Web 2.0 Barriers How do we go about addressing these barriers? (And should we – what if the concerns are legitimate!)
    • Addressing The Barriers
      • In order to address these barriers we need to:
        • Understand our organisation's culture
        • Recognise the limitations of the services we're seeking to deploy
        • Be user-focussed in the services we seek to implement
        • Support safe, possibly small-scale usage
        • Have a deployment strategy to build on small-scale pilots and move to larger-scale usage (if appropriate)
        • We may also wish to:
          • Work within our organisation's culture
          • Instigate cultural change within our organisation
      Web 2.0 Barriers
    • Nobody Likes Us - The Users' View
      • IT Services:
        • Don't understand learning and teaching and think that students only ever use the Web for messing around.
        • Have no interest in what the users actually want and generally prefer to give the users what they themselves think they want. (I've seen senior IS staff dismiss the data gathered in formal user requirements gathering exercises because it doesn't fit their own viewpoint.)
        • Tend to work in silos (example: student information systems team which won't talk to the VLE team), and will do anything to avoid working with others outside of their own silo. They have no concept of team working across services or with academic staff.
        • Consultation usually consists of them telling you what they are going to do . If you tell them what you want they don't listen!
      IT Services Barrier Do these comments ring any bells? If not, how can you be sure?
    • Beware The IT Fundamentalists
      • We need to avoid simplistic solutions to the complexities:
        • Open Standards Fundamentalist: we just need XML
        • Open Source Fundamentalist: we just need Linux
        • Vendor Fundamentalist: we must need next version of our enterprise system (and you must fit in with this)
        • Accessibility Fundamentalist: we must do WAI WCAG
        • User Fundamentalist: we must do whatever users want
        • Legal Fundamentalist: it breaches copyright, …
        • Ownership Fundamentalist: must own everything we use
        • Perfectionist : it doesn't do everything, so we'll do nothing
        • Simplistic Developer : I've developed a perfect solution – I don't care if it doesn't run in the real world
      IT Services Barrier IT Director, March 2006 " I could give names of the individuals in my department! "
    • The Librarian Fundamentalists
      • Librarians:
        • Think they know better than the user e.g. they don't like people using Google Scholar; they should use Web of Knowledge (who cares that users find it easier to use Google Scholar & finds references they need that way?)
        • Think that users should be forced to learn Boolean searching & other formal search techniques because this is good for them (despite Sheffield's study).
        • Don't want the users to search for themselves (cf folksonomies) because they won't get it right.
        • They still want to classify the entire Web - despite the fact that users don't use their lists of Web links.
        • Want services to be perfect before they release them to users. They are uneasy with the concept of 'forever beta' (they don't believe that users have the ability to figure things out themselves and work around the bugs).
      Library Barrier
    • The Problem With The Users
      • The enthusiastic users will be:
        • Here, encouraged by Web 2.0 descriptions
        • Cheering the critiques of the service departments
      • However:
        • Many users are conservative & won't care
        • Many will feel threatened
        • Many won't like WiFi in libraries, lecture theatres, students chatting on IRC, Googling answers, …
        • Many will soon ask for WiFi to be removed, blocked from lecture theatres (including areas where it's not yet available!)
      The Users Barrier
    • Addressing the Barriers
      • How do we address such barriers:
        • A change in culture
        • Being more open (surely what HE is about?)
        • Revisiting AUPs
        • Developing more sophisticated models for standards, accessibility, open sources, …
        • Developing key principles
        • Ongoing debate and discussion
      Cultural Change
    • Implement An Open Approach
      • Implementing an open approach should not be difficult:
        • We have tradition of sharing & using OSS
        • The HE sector is now more open to discussing open access issues (e-prints, financial issues, …)
        • Creative Commons (CC) provides a legal framework
      • What can we do:
        • Make support services resources available with CC licence: see paper on " Let's Free IT Support Materials! "
        • Exploit UKOLN's QA Focus briefing documents: 100+ documents available with CC licence
      Using other's resources and service may be unpopular (job security, ideology, …). For example, should IT services host email, … when this can be outsourced? Cultural Change
    • Acceptable Use Policies (AUP)
      • Is Skype Permitted over JANET?
        • "The Computing Service is frequently asked for a ruling on whether Skype may legitimately be used ... the Computing Service considers that use of Skype contravenes the JANET Acceptable Use Policy, although UKERNA does not concur with this view." (Mar 2006 - now toned down)
      • Missing The Point?
      • There may be (religious) debates over the interpretation of UKERNA's words. But
        • Did the policy come from God? Is it infallible?
        • Why do we hide behind AUPs?
      Revisiting AUPs Proposal : An AUP is meant to work on behalf of an organisation, helping to ensure the effective use of IT by its users. An AUP should not be used as a control mechanism to prevent usage which IT staff may frown upon.
    • The Need For An AUPP
      • AUPs:
        • Shouldn't be cast in stone: technologies change; usage changes; culture changes (e.g. AUPs banning social use; email; Web; messaging; …)
        • Therefore need for mechanisms for changing AUPs and engagement with users
      • Proposal:
        • We need an Acceptable Use Policy Process (AUPP)
        • We need mechanisms to ensure users can input into the discussion process
        • We need more flexibility in our AUPs (e.g. to reflect blended learning, pervasiveness of IT; …)
       Cultural Change
    • Risk Management (1)
      • IWMW 2006 has taken a risk management approach to its evaluation of Web 2.0 technologies:
        • Agreements : e.g. in the case of the Chatbot.
        • Use of well-established services : Google & del.icio.us are well-established and have financial security.
        • Notification : warnings that services could be lost.
        • Engagement : with the user community: users actively engage in the evaluation of the services.
        • Provision of alternative services: multiple OMPL tools.
        • Use in non-mission critical areas: not for bookings!
        • Long term experiences of services: usage stats
        • Availability of alternative sources of data : e.g. standard Web server log files.
        • Data export and aggregation: RSS feeds, aggregated in Suprglu, OPML viewers, etc.
      Taking Risks
    • Risk Management (2)
      • File Formats
        • Microformats are a bottom-up approach
        • OPML is simple but ambiguous
        • How scalable?
        • Will formats change in light of experience?
      • Approaches:
        • Use to provide services today
        • Look for tools which will allow for changes
      • Applications
        • No longer critical in many areas!
        • If application is flawed, no longer available through it away and use an alterative
      Taking Risks Note that you also take risks in not providing a service! Will your users go elsewhere?
    • Safe Experimentation
      • How can we gain experiences of Web 2.0:
        • Safe environment
        • Which minimise risks
        • Which allow learning
      • Possibilities:
        • Using technologies at events such as ILI!
        • Supporting the services which your users use (e.g. Google!)
        • Using services which require minimal effort
      Piloting Web 2.0 Let's quickly review how Web 2.0 was used at the IWMW 2006 event, June 2006. Slides taken from " Web 2.0: Behind The Hype " panel session
    • Blogs
      • Blogs:
        • We link to Blogs provided by IWMW 2006 delegates
        • We recommend a tag (IWMW2006) to make it easier to find other Blogs, photos, bookmarks, etc. related to the event (e.g. using Technorati )
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 http://www.meanboyfriend.com/overdue_ideas/ http://iwmw2006.blogspot.com/ Why? Facilitates sharing of thoughts about event. Effort : None – the Bloggers are doing the work! Risks : They say nasty things; upset people; … Blogs Users Syndication
    • Wikis
      • Wikis:
        • Used successfully at IWMW 2005 and UKOLN / UCISA events for note-taking in breakout groups, social use, …
        • Available at IWMW 2006:
          • UKOLN Wiki (MediaWiki)
          • Other Wikis (for various parallel sessions)
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2005/wiki-test/ Why? Wikis have proved popular at other UKOLN events Why diversity : To allow us to gain a feel of different Wikis and their strength & weaknesses. Wikis Users Syndication http://iwmw-barriers.pbwiki.com/
    • Maps
      • Google Map of University of Bath embedded on Web site
      • Provides:
        • Usability (rescalable and repositioning through use of AJAX)
        • Can be personalised (map from my home)
        • Effective use of scarce resources (avoids techies duplicating existing services)
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2006/maps/ Risk : What if Google go out-of-business? Response : What if local staff leave? What if other development work they should do fails to get done? Note : Northumbria have better examples APIs AJAX Mashups Syndication
    • Building A Community
      • Building a community for your Web site can:
        • Maximise impact by allowing interested parties to discuss their shared interests
        • Provide you with feedback & ideas
        • Allow you to provide targetted information
      http://www.frappr.com/iwmw2006 Web 2.0 services such as Frappr, Blogger, MySpace, etc. allow Web communities to be easily set up (and may be particularly valuable to the 'Net Generation') Mashup AJAX Collaboration
    • Del.icio.us
      • Del.icio.us social bookmarking service available for use to:
        • Provide access to resources mentioned in talks & workshops
        • Allow others to bookmark related resources
        • Allow users to view others’ bookmarks
        • Monitor who’s bookmarked your resources
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 Tags AJAX Collaboration http://del.icio.us/gardnerr http://del.icio.us/url/cce31782b323dd77ab48f5ff54ead71c http://del.icio.us/lisbk/iwmw2006-web2.0-panel Tag misuse? Not needed in some areas (e.g. citation analysis, other people interests) So if, e.g., misspellings users still gain benefits.
    • Mashups
      • Mashup - aggregating content from various sources
      • IWMW 2006:
        • Set up IWMW 2006 Suprgru page
        • Mashup from:
          • IWMW 2006 Web site
          • Third party services such as Blogs, Wikis, bookmarking services, Flickr, search engines, …
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 Syndication Why? Simple demonstration to encourage debate about the issues. Effort : Simple (fill in a Web form) Experiences : Superglu service not always available (so what, use Netvibes.com, PLEX, …) http://iwmw2006.suprglu.com/
    • Microformats
      • Pages on IWMW 2006 Web site have microformats
      • Plugins such as Tails display contact and event details & allow them to be uploaded to Outlook, Google Calendar, etc
      Further information on microformats given in " An Introduction to Microformats " QA Focus briefing document no. 100" Web 2.0 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2006/sessions/kelly/ Tags Collaboration
    • Podcasts
      • Podcasts:
        • Used at IWMW 2005 (prior to general public interest)
        • Podcasting session at IWMW 2006
      http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2005/podcasts/podcast.xml Why? Gain experiences at popular technology; explore difference usages and technical and non-technical issues Effort : Non – work being led by workshop facilitator. RSS Users Syndication
    • Communications: Chat
      • IRC chat facility was popular at IWMW 2005/6.
      • Gabbly being evaluated:
        • If no systems effort available
        • On-the-fly chatting
      • How long to set up:
        • Go to < http://gabbly.com/ >
        • Create chat on your institution’s home page
        • How long?
      • This provides on-the-fly creation of chat facilities 
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 Too good to be true? Suspicious of anything this simple? See risk assessment page Users Collaboration AJAX Syndication
    • Wikipedia
      • Summary of IWMW series available in Wikipedia:
        • High profile location
        • Google friendly
        • Maximise impact
        • Community can update
        • Good guys seem to win (and I’ve now a Wikipedia track record)
        • CC rights assigned
        • Clean URI
        • May provide stable URI
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWMW Clean, stable URIs? Mashups, integration, annotation, etc. helped by use of clean (e.g. application independent) and stable URIs URIs Wikis Collaboration
    • IWMC
      • Institutional Web Management Workshop (IWMW):
        • Highly successful event for community
        • 10 workshops held since 1997
        • IMWM 2006 and website-info-mgt email discussion: we're a community; let's do more 
      • Suggestions:
        • Let's build on IWMW success
        • Let's support a IWMC (IWM Community)
        • Based on Web 2.0 principles:
          • User-focussed  Trust
          • User responsibility
          • Lightweight centralised coordination, but not control
          • Benefits of social networking
      Next Steps
    • Next Steps
      • What can you do?
        • Contribute to Wikis
        • Blog and share your experiences
        • Set up community Blogs
        • Use Creative Commons
        • Map your buildings, create appropriate metadata; integrate with Google Maps
        • Use microformats for events; …
      • You can also think locally and act globally:
        • Address your local and regional needs
        • And share with the wider community
      What do you suggest? Next Steps
    • Summary
      • We have seen:
        • Several lightweight example of how Web 2.0 technologies can be used
        • Examples of the benefits of Web 2.0 attitudes (user-focus; benefits of collaborative approaches; trust)
        • Ways of minimising risks and costs
        • Use of Web 2.0 in our institutions can be helped by a IWMC with a Web 2.0 ethos
      Conclusions &quot; Do not ask what the community can do for you, ask what you can do for the community &quot;