DIGITAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT

1. DIGITAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT The Hull Portal - Gateway to Managed InformationPEPC 2003Ian Dolphin Robert Sherratt

2. The Digital University Project • Planned over the summer of 2001 • Initially to develop a student intranet • Senior Management buy-in and support • Flexible structure with cross-institutional steering group • Four main development strands

3. 1 2 3 Portal Layer Web Content New Services • AIPP • Aggregate • Integrate • Personalise • Present Resolving Chaos Processand Technology Accessibility A chance to get it right… Development Model Organisational Change Obstacles & Progress 4 External The UK Information Landscape The PORTAL Project BusinessPartners

4. 4 1 2 3 External Portal Layer Web Content New Services The UK Information Landscape The PORTAL Project BusinessPartners • AIPP • Aggregate • Integrate • Personalise • Present Resolving Chaos Processand Technology Accessibility A chance to get it right… Development Model Organisational Change Obstacles & Progress

5. Aggregate and Integrate what? • Core database applications - Ingres • Web based email client – IMP • Library systems - Innovative • Staff Intranet - home-grown, PERL etc • VLE/LMS/PFE – BlackBoard L1 + Merlin • External applications - identification

6. Further Education Students: Postgraduate Students: Review marks Library admin Library admin Search favourite resources Deadline alerts Deadline alerts Careers info Teaching materials Library & Internet resource alert Access reading lists Higher Education Undergrad: Higher Education Staff: Deadline alerts Search favourite resources Review marks Library admin = 2nd Library admin Personal information = 2nd University e-mail Teaching materials Library & Internet resource alert Search favourite resources Forms & documentation

7. Why uPortal? • Procurement = 1st with commercial offering • Against modified San Diego State U. rubric • Development community • Integration: more rapid, less effort • Ease of visual adaptation • Aesthetic & distinctive branding • Accessibility • Standards-based interfaces

9. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

13. Portal Deployment Timetable • Autumn 2001 • Portal Procurement • Content Management Development • Spring & Summer 2002 • Integration and testing • Autumn 2002 • Live with Geography, Internet Computing • Autumn 2003 • Live with all staff and students for key services

14. Content Management: Resolving Chaos • The Web: it’s not amateur hour anymore • Web tools by Heinz – 57 varieties of editor • Technical support nightmare • Human Resource nightmare • Accessibility “test case” – any volunteers? • Aggregating web pages through portal: GIGO

15. Content Management: Solutions • Solution for sites and portal channels • Caveat: 2 years ago, but watching… • Almost universally expensive/overpriced • Frequently inflexible • Not designed for use by HEI

16. Content Management: Technology • Not “Build or buy, but build and buy” • db solution utilising current licences • Edit basic content within secure web page • Design templates • XHTML output (now) > XSLT (future) • “standard” design – WAI level 1 • “accessibility enhanced” design – WAI level 3 • Support rudimentary, but flexible workflow

20. Content Management Process • Sensitivity to cultures of departments • “What do you need to do?” • Information design & architecture first • Flexible “toolkit” approach • Clear responsibilities and ownership

24. eService Integration Interactive Media Corporate Systems Libraries Computing Corporate Systems Archives Libraries Computing Archives Proposed New Structures

25. External Resources & Interactions • The UK FE/HE information landscape • JISC funded resources & services • JISC provided resources & services • Commercial subscriptions • Athens (central authentication service) • The bank, the bus and the bar …

26. PORTAL • Presenting natiOnal Resources to Audiences Locally • JISC funded, U. Hull and UKOLN + RDN • Duration 18 months • Range of external quality-assured content • Meaningful integration (not lists of links) • Extracting functionality from external sites • Surveying stakeholder and user preferences

27. PORTAL Survey • Method • Online card sort • Focus group • Interview (one to one)

29. Portal Survey • Responses • 630 completed card sort • 50 involved in focus groups • 30 one-to-one interviews • PORTAL project URL: • http://www.fair-portal.hull.ac.uk

30. Obstacles • Institutional readiness • Changing culture & process redevelopment • Technology issues include … • LMS/VLE: overfeatured, overpriced, and over here… • Readiness of external sites to disclose data or services rather than web pages • Human resource issues include … • Track emerging standards (who and how much time?) • Changing and redeveloping skill bases

31. Risks • “Don’t like it, won’t use it” • Stakeholder survey work from PORTAL informs development • “Will it sort my network connection out?” • Managing expectations • Staff Development open sessions • Dissemination activities • “It’ll fall over” • Hardware identification and investment • Load balancing & SSL acceleration • Observe and stress test

32. New Architectures: Web Services • Standards-based layer enabling inter-application communication over IP network • Addresses technology and HR issues • Legacy applications and developers • Informs the creation of new services … • … and the redevelopment of older services • Maintaining a “thin” portal layer

34. JA-SIG UK • http://www.ja-sig.org.uk/ • Digital University Project • http://www.digital.hull.ac.uk • PORTAL Project • http://www.fair-portal.hull.ac.uk • i.dolphin@hull.ac.uk • r.sherratt@hull.ac.uk