1.  University of Edinburgh (A-T)
     Jean Ritchie     Kim Underwood
 
2.  Heriot-Watt University
     Carol Higgison    Nora Mogey
 
3. University of Paisley
    Charlie Hunter     Neil Pitcher
    Iain MacLaren

4.  University of St Andrews
     Colin Allison    Brian Shields

5.  University of Strathclyde
     Lorna Campbell    Ralph Weedon
      Dave McNicol    Dave Whittington

1) Attendees as above

2)  Server Discussion
2.1) CA thought that any server would need to be replicated to provide resilience. CA suggested an ATM interface and ethernet box for fast delivery. CA said ethernet boxes are available relatively cheap (~£1800). CA agreed to prepare some sort of written specification, giving eg. prices, the different types of ethernet  boxes available etc.
                                                                                                                    Action CA
2.2) It was agreed that the proposed server needed to provide for Scotland a similar service to what CVU has provided for the West of Scotland. This was not only a server but included services as well.  JR agreed to discuss this with Paul Clark and Bill Harvey, SHEFC.
                                                                                                                    Action JR

3) Report from Jean Ritchie
3.1) Discussions indicated that while providing a basic server with hardware and low level maintenance would be worthwhile, it might be even more worthwhile to provide other services eg HyperNews discussion and email discussion lists.  JR is to raise this with SHEFC: this is moving into service provision.  It is also more or less duplicating the service that CVU have provided for the West of Scotland,  hence JR has discussed this with Dave Whittington.

3.2) Attended the JISC ASSIST workshop on Intranets, where Susan Rogers of Harvard Business School demonstrated their Intranet which has attracted a lot of attention.  Users log on with a password and then see a web page with lots of options including courses, notices, mend doorknob, reserve room, library catalogue etc.  Staff have a button that allows them to edit materials.

3.3) SR’s main messages were:

3.3.1 Avoid proprietary solutions and use open standards.  Hence: internet email, html.  This rules out FirstClass, WebCT.  If open standards are used, any systems will be extensible and expertise can be shared between HEIs.  HBS provided web front ends to legacy databases based on Oracle, SQL.

3.3.2 Make Faculty publish material on the web; HBS provided really simple web based forms to make this easy for Faculty to do.  Faculty also have the choice of creating complex web materials and linking them in. However they don’t have to produce complex material in order to publish.

3.3.3 Students provide their personal information directly onto the web.  It is not checked

3.3.4 Their Dean decreed that as of a certain date, the Web would be the ONLY means of Faculty communicating with students.  This high-level decree was needed to get the system started.  This was just one school at Harvard; 200 Faculty; 600 staff; 60 IT staff.

3.3.5 Yes, their students do print stuff off; the new students don’t complain…

3.3.6 Their discussion and collaborative tools are said by SR to be still primitive; they are working on them.

3.3.7 HBS use the Socratic method of teaching and didn’t go in for lectures.  They use a lot of case studies and these can be put online.

3.3.8 They have made a library of video material available, and show staff how to incorporate this.  When Faculty see that this medium allows them to do new things, they start to want to use it.

3.3.9 HBS only worry about Not Learning from mistakes.  Mistakes are OK (once).

3.3.10 HBS started small, adding features little by little.  Mistake to go for the Big Bang and hope to install a finished system all at once.  Develop ‘a little every day’.

3.3.11 The system was designed by a small team consisting of IT developers and 2 or 3 faculty.

3.3.12 No fancy graphics on screen, so the site can be used over slow connections.

3.5) LC mentioned that the HBS has 60 IT support people to 200 Faculty, and that before this project there had been 90 IT staff.  Scottish HEIs do not have such a high ratio of IT staff to Faculty.  She thought this kind of intranet might not work as well, for example, in an Art Department. LC asked how much this intranet had cost to set up and run. JR said all staff  in the school had received a new PC as part of the initiative.

3.6) JR pointed out that some sites prefer to use bundled authoring tools such as Web CT and wondered if these could interwork with an open system. DW said that CVU could install WebCT on their server and did not expect it to conflict with other materials held there; in other words both types of system could be run from the same server.

4)  Data facilities in videoconference studios
4.1 JR reported that there was concern among the VC managers about the high price of installing projectors into the VC studios, to be used with a data line and PC to make online presentations based on  eg NetMeeting possible in the studios.  She asked whether people thought data facilities were necessary in Scottish MAN videoconference studios.

4.2 CA reported that his project’s meetings often resorted to presenting screen dumps on the visualiser since they need to discuss screen layouts and results during meetings, and that they would certainly use a data projection facility.

4.3 NP said he thought data facilities were essential if the rooms were to be used for teaching.

4.4 ChH thought data facilities were needed in the VC studios and mentioned that it is important for the student to be able to see the lecturer at the same time as the slides. IMacL agreed with this.

4.5 ChH  pointed out that noise generated by PCs and projectors not correctly installed/ placed causes problems at the "host site" as well as at remote sites. ChH used the Scottish MAN videoconference facilities launch as an example, saying that he was aware of the noise emitted from two PCs and a projector in the Paisley VC room.

5)  AOB
5.1 A TALiSMAN workshop on intranets will be held on 20th October.  Places are allocated through HEIDS (Higher Education Information Directors in Scotland).

5.2 There are still places available for people who want to attend the UMI/TALiSMAN event on 28th Oct at Napier University or University of Paisley VC rooms. CH will send some leaflets promoting the event to ChH and JR, who will place them around campus at Napier and Paisley.
                                                                                                    Action CH, ChH and JR
5.3  LC asked JR when the SHEFC call for bids for web tools will go out. JR said it will be soon.

5.4 CA mentioned that the MANs were initially set up in order to be able to run fast, high quality video and audio streams, but now it seems they are being used more for general administration etc. CA said that one way he would like to make more use of the bandwidth would be to use desktop VC for teaching, but that such software doesn't seem to exist.

5.5 LC had left CVU and was working at Strathclyde Graduate Business School.  She would like to use streaming video in teaching materials there, and would appreciate any information on people’s experiences in using it.  Child Health MediCAL used  a lot of video in their teaching modules. JR agreed to ask NH what the project’s experiences were using video.
                                                                                                                        Action JR
5.6 CA pointed out that it is possible to reserve bandwidth for streaming video traffic.

5.7 The next UMI meeting will be held on Monday 26th October, from 1530 - 1630. Peter Twining from the Open University will be speaking about Knowledge Elicitation Engines.