Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PIC.edu Survey Review
Internet2 Presence & Integrated Communications Working Group
Fall Member Meeting, 2007
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.
Key Terms Presence is 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
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
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
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
Survey Question 1
Survey Question 2
Survey Question 3
So what’s important?
3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Standards-based
Instant messaging
Secure and encrypted protocols
Client control of presence capab.
Integration w/existing package
Encrypted communications
Works out of the box
Group chat, app sharing
Rated importance on a 1-5 scale
Some of the top rated features:
Survey Question 5
Survey Question 6
Survey Question 7
Survey Question 8
Survey Question 9
Survey Question 14
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?
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?
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
