Talk:University of Canberra/Things that don't work

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Summarising[edit]

Sorry for not making mention of my intensions to summarise this document into key areas. I've noted a meeting we had in the Faculty of Health (your apologies given James) where we discussed how we would get this document into a digestible 2 pager for consideration by management. I also need to feed it into the vision document that I have several people in management waiting on, so that this list of largely technical problems is part of an over all proposal for policy and procedure change in the organisation.

James, I note your suggestion to bring all this under a banner of usability. I think that's a good idea. The title "Things that don't work" was just an attention grabber and tongue in cheek in joke for us at UC. Does your suggestion include decontextualising it somehow from the UC experience? Or would the name change be more like UC/usability and we'd make it a case study in the WV context of Usability largely? Leighblackall 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Interfacing WV with academia[edit]

added a link from http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improve_interfacing_with_academia#Community_Discussion Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenID[edit]

I wonder whether OpenID sign-on to UC systems could help to improve the multiple sign-on username/password issue? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Usability[edit]

Wondering whether all these and other similar issues might be subsumed within the broader issue of "usability"? If UC cares about student and staff satisfaction then a dedicated usability project to track the everyday business-as-usual experiences of students and staff could readily identify key areas to target. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyleft[edit]

I think copyleft sometimes does not work because once a work begins to have some history multiple copyright notices and condition statements may find there way into a work which can be confusing to sort out what rights you have and what needs to be kept intact. I wish copyleft license producers would include a howto guide for reusing works under there licenses both for people that wish to redistribute the work and for people that wish to modify and redistribute the work. I also wish copyleft license providers that say that other licenses are compatible with their license would explain how and what you need to do to use a work under their license instead. Easy of use seems to be missing. -- darklama  22:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I also saw your related question on Talk:Open academia in practice. I agree that these are important issues to be considered especially in order to be able to better promote open licensing. It was the most confusing part of our first open academia in practice workshop - that participants struggled to understand the array of licenses and their various options as well as how to attribute appropriately. We need better ways to explain/communicate to copyleft novices. Maybe we start a project on Copyleft licensing? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with most of the popular options and got a decent grasp of how to attribute appropriately when dealing with one copyright and one set of conditions I think. Beyond one copyright and one set of conditions I am lost. I am also lost when it comes to using a work under terms of different yet compatible license. Like for example using a work originally licensed under CC-BY-SA instead under GFDL. Sometimes the meaning of dual license isn't always clear either. Dual license can mean you can pick between several licenses AND can mean you must comply with all licenses. People are not always careful to distinguish which meaning they intended. -- darklama  04:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)