Time: 1:30 PM CST
- Organizational stuff
- Summary of reported problems at
- Revised evaluation form by Philip at
Note that the above form cannot be used in the current format at this time for evaluation; I am putting it up there so you can see the revised questions along with the improved select box choices.
- Stratigic planning for 2007
- Identifying second contact person at WebCT when Robert cannot come to the meetings
- Letter to WebCT regarding improving the level of collaboration
As of now, I haven't heard from Robert back, so I don't know if he will be able to join us today or not. I have removed the agenda items related to him but I will keep them as pending agenda items and make sure that they are carried over to the next one.
Minutes from WebCT Teleconference on January 8th, 2007
Hadi Bargi Rangin
HR: Asking about availability of the January 22nd, people on the call seem to be able to come.
SP: I will try
HR: I want more flexibility in scheduling, right now we are meeting the 1st and the 3rd Mondays
HR: Can anyone take notes next time
KY: I will take note next time
SR: The 5th and 19th of February are meeting times in February
SR: I cannot commit, we are implementing a new policy on campus and I am getting a lot of requests for training
HR: The people taking minutes are highly variable, can we come up with a common template, especially for action items
HR: You will be seeing changes in the website to provide more overview information. We want to have better information on the status of issues and action items.
HR: Any other comments or other organizational changes?
SR: Do still need to meet bimonthly meetin?
HR: I am worried about making it random
SR: Right now this is not a priority for me, maybe once a month
PK: You have been sending out agenda, individuals can make a decision whether they want to participate or not
SJ: The burden is all on Haai
HR: This is part of my job, I want to make progress
HR: Right now RD is very busy and it is not a priority to meet with us
PK: I guess they are reorganizing
SP: They may have deemphasized accessibility since they have done some thing, they are getting a lot of free help, that enhances their product
PK: Should we take the letter SP developed and have our CIOs send to WebCT/Blackboard
SP: We need to come to some understanding of our relationship with them, what is there priority in working with us
SP: Right now they are taking us for granted, they have done a lot and they can talk about it
SP: We don't really know what they are doing with us
HR: RD is promised more changes
PK: It seems they could set up a server for accessibility testing
SP: It seems to be more of a marketing server to demonstrate features
SP: this was a great learning process, but we need more commitment from WebCT
HR: He said he was going to get a by weekly update, but it doesn't seem to happen
SP: I put in the letter what I think
PK: I can clean it up
JG: I will talk to Lanny Arvan about accessibility
JG: Are biggest weapon is the public nature of our information
SJ: This might help
ACTION: PK will edit letter
ACTION: JG I will Lanny Arvan about strategies
SJ: We need a letter of understanding between WebCT/Blackboard and our group
JK: I went through 3-4 design work on grade book and then they switched to AJAX technologies
SJ: Let us work on the ..
HR: RD reported he could not come today, he has apparently not seen the issues list, but would like to go through them at some time.
HR: Details of accessibility reporting and fixing...
Revised form by Phil
HR: Questions are similar, but editorial
PK: The responses were yes/no, so I added a scalled response:
JG: Response in FAE description
PK: Should we have less choices and more in the comments, the FAE coding is more detailed
HR: He is suggested is a more FAE like
PK: Will people doing the evaluations understand the gradations
JG: What I hear you saying is that do people may have trouble finding all the problems and
SJ: If we provide them that level of details, or that we should be providing them, ofr how to communicate bugs
PK: What level of details do they need, program managers versus programmers
SJ: I have worked with developers to update their templates to include labels for form controls
HR: My experience is that the more specific information they can find it easier
JG: We are trying to change the way they are doing things, so code does not get out
HR: Comment information in the report is very important for providing feedback to RD
HR: At the end of the form there is an area for list general accessibility policies
PK: We are telling them what wrong, not how to detect them and test for them
HR: We started doing that, but then they merged with Blackboard
PK: They were told, but we are not cure how much we changed
JG: This all comes back to not having a contract with them
HR: We talked about a letter, we can ask them for a second person to participate
PK: We all have very busy scheduled, maybe the first meeting of the month is just the working group members, and RD would come to the second meeting
HR: We have a lot of issues
SP: We need to specify an alternative member when RD can not attend
SP: We need to have mutually agreeable process
SP: What is the most effective way
SP: The letter on thew web initially moved them
JG: They may not be that interested since they are working
Action Item Summary
HR: Summary of Action Items
Letter to WebCT (PK and JG)
Coordinate with RD on teleconference and issues (HR)
Update issues list (HR)
Update php to include PK commenting system (HR and JG)
I will contacting people who have done reports to check to see if those are the issues (HR)
HR: What our priorities?
JG: Improving their QA process and implementation of author/instructor accessibility testing tools
PK: A contractual or agreement, a QA manual of techniques
SJ: JRG tools and techniques are pretty good, we automatically do these things in our programmers
SJ: We are not just a bug reporting system
- Please contact Hadi Rangin (e-mail: email@example.com) if you are interested to work to be included in any of the collaboration groups.