PIC Survey Review

1. PIC.edu Survey Review Internet2 Presence & Integrated Communications Working Group Fall Member Meeting, 2007

2. History of the PIC Working Group • The Presence and Integrated Communications (PIC) Working group was formed in the summer of 2003. • PIC fosters the deployment of integrated realtime communication technologies through demonstrations, tutorials, and initiatives in broad collaboration with the private sector and open-source initiatives.

3. Key Terms • Presenceis information about a person's availability for communication over a network, from basic on/off network awareness to rich presence attributes such as user activity, geographical location, and device capabilities • Integrated Communications involves multiple forms of communications, working together

4. PIC Projects & Demonstrations • Indianapolis, Oct 2003 • Presence Elements: location (manual); room session name; session end time • Honolulu, Jan 2004 and Arlington, Apr 2004 • Presence Elements: location (automatic); room session name; session end time; per-room internet weather • PIC-SER - A workgroup “package” implementing Presence and Integrated Communications, based on the SIP Express Router (SER). • The PIC.edu project, which begins with a survey

5. PIC.edu Objectives • Make it simpler for institutions to deploy a IM&P solution which will interoperate with other institutions • Facilitate a broad deployment of federated IM&P across higher ed institutions • Over time, experiment with richer presence elements such as location, scheduling

6. The PIC.edu Survey • A survey intended to gauge interest and to inform the project • Sent out to a sampling (just over 50) of member institutions in September • 17 responses (about 33%!) were received and recorded

7. Survey Question 1

8. Survey Question 2

9. Survey Question 3

10. So what’s important? Some of the top rated features: Rated importance on a 1-5 scale

11. Survey Question 5

12. Survey Question 6

13. Survey Question 7

14. Survey Question 8

15. Survey Question 9

16. Survey Question 14

17. Observations • From Q1 - most haven’t deployed; Q2 - most people want to • Jabber is used quite broadly • Most of the clients we asked about are in use, and people listed others as well as others: Zephyr, Horizon Wimba Live Classroom, Novell Groupwise IM • Standards-based and IM are the only two features that got a 66% or higher "most useful" rating. These features are the core of the pic.edu concept. • Other key features: • Secure protocols and encrypted communications, including presence updates and contact list retrievals • Integration/compatibility with existing communications package, e.g. part of a unified communications solution containing voice, email, and IM • Group chat, application sharing, and file sharing • Client control of presence capabilities, such as the availability of devices/media (e.g. muting, lens cap on camera) • Works out of the box, with easy feature navigation and conservative default values for privacy and security • 75% don’t have standardized naming, 100% have no way to find names -- is this because these are not needed, or for some other reason?

18. Possible Conclusions • Survey shows both a need for PIC.edu, and an awareness of that need • Q14 (want to participate?) - 41% yes, 35% depends • Next Steps?

19. Next Steps • Select client / server candidates for PIC.edu • Document recommended practices • Package initial PIC.edu release • Find initial deployment group for v1.0 • Enable participant collaboration • Calls, Mailing Lists • The PIC.edu package itself! • Line up PIC.edu project software developers to help with extensions beyond version 1.0

20. Contact • The PIC WG Mailing list • Wg-pic@internet2.edu • The PIC.edu advisory board • Pic.edu@internet2.edu