IWMW blogs

We are trying to pull together a list of all the Barcamp sessions that ran. Here’s what we have so far. Did you run or attend one that isn’t on our list?

BarCamps Session 1

1. Open data / Linked Data:  Suraj Kika, Jadu
2. An Insight Into Website Quality Assurance and Enterprise Search: Site Improve
3. Client Update and Feedback Session: Terminal Four
4. Making Your Site Mobile-Friendly: Patrick H Lauke, Opera
5. Gett9ing On With Plone: Helen Sargan, University of Cambridge
6. Course Finders and Beyond: Mark Eyles, Squiz
7. Building a Business Case for Mobile: Chameleon Net
8. Have You tested Your Site Externally To Ensure It Doesn’t Fail Your Visitors, Site Confidence

BarCamps Session 2

1. Slate My Website: Mike Nolan, Edge Hill University
2. Promoting Your Institution with Wikipedia – an insider’s view: Martin Poulter, The Economics Network, ILRT, University of Bristol
3. Web Teams Must Blog: Brian Kelly, UKOLN
4. What Makes For a Great Online Video? – review live examples: Amy Chamier, Institute of Education, University of London
5. Instant Usability Test – let’s do one, with volunteer website and participant: Keith Doyle, Extreme Usability
6. Helping Your Users Get Satisfaction: Martin Morrey, University of Edinburgh
7. Fighting the System (Politics): Paul Boag
8. Apache Wookie & W3C Widgets: Scott Wilson, University of Bolton

As facilitator, I showed three university videos on YouTube. And then invited delegates to award cheers and boos. The first video got mixed reviews. I loved it and thought it spot on for the target audiences. Others disagreed. Opinions about the subsequent videos were pretty unanimous.

Everyone at this barcamp had experience of commissioning online videos, either from independent agencies, freelance producers or in-house media services.

1. Columbia University, School of Journalism (5 minutes)
Target audience = new international students
Secondary audience = prospective international students

Cheers

• Witty introduction
• “Students-interview-students” format gives a fresh and credible feel to the content
• Cheap production values creates a fly-on-the wall, documentary look

Boos

• Patronising introduction
• “Students-interview-students” format is a PR mistake, for example a comment about the subway being unsafe will deter prospective students
• Cheap production values give a grainy, unprofessional look

2. University of Westminster, School of Social Sciences (8 minutes)
Target audience = prospective students for an MRes programme

Cheers

• Prospective students can “meet” the course tutors

Boos

• Hard-to-read pre-roll (too much information)
• Feels too long, and the visual content doesn’t add anything to the audio content
• “Staff-talking-direct-to-camera” format feels stiff and unnatural, plus they look as if they are reciting a script from memory
• Plants waving about in the wind, in the background, are a distraction

3. Cranfield University, School of Management (13 minutes)
Target audience = all stakeholders

Cheers

• Professional feel, because filmed in a studio, with an interviewer and multiple cameras
• Interview format and production quality is congruent with the target audience

Boos

• Hard to read pre-roll (too much information on second shot)
• DOG (digital onscreen graphic) takes up too much screen space, and is it really necessary?

Amy Chamier, Web Editor
Institute of Education, University of London

This year we held our first online BarCamp, especially for our remote audience. The session attracted 21 viewers, including 7 active and talkative participants! We had representatives from Washtenaw Community College, Michigan USA, University of Huddersfield, Heriot-Watt University, a former employee from the UK Centre for Legal Education, (now freelancing in Denmark!) and Oxford University.

We gathered in the event live blog, hosted through CoverItLive. This live blog has been active throughout the event, providing none-Twitter users with a channel to view the live commentary and delegate tweets, as well a facility to post their own comments and questions without the need for a login. Comments were moderated, as there was no obligation for people to identify themselves when making a comment.

For the BarCamp, I disabled the feed from the #iwmw10 hash tag, which effectively gave us a clear discussion space without the tweets from delegates in other BarCamp sessions. I invited participants to introduce themselves and to suggest topics of interest for discussion. As each person introduced themselves, I granted them unmoderated posting on an individual basis to enable freer flowing discussion.

The topic of most interest that seemed to evolve was the online course prospectus, with the discussion focussing on user testing, moving away from print and managing the politics of content contribution. There were some interesting experiences shared: including usability studies conducted by business students as part of their assessment process. The discussion then widened out to include the use of social media in the recruitment process – particularly the use of IM, which one participant had found substantially improved post-graduate recruitment.

The BarCamp also provided a useful opportunity to talk with the remote audience about their experiences of event amplification and to check how everything is going for them. They are apparently all waiting for a Gordon Brown moment when a speaker forgets they are being live streamed at the beginning or end of a presentation! We also have some useful feedback about requirements of certain institutional firewalls which have prevented access to the live video stream. Remote delegates were also able to build direct relationships and exchange contact details. The feedback from the BarCamp was very supportive, and their was an enthusiasm to see the talk archived for future reference and for other delegates to access the discussion.

This year we plan to help our remote audience get more actively involved by running their own online BarCamp.

There are 2 x 30 min BarCamp sessions, which are scheduled to take place between 14:15 and 15:30 on Tuesday 13th July. Physical delegates will be suggesting their own topics and gathering in like-minded groups to discuss and learn from each other. Now our online delegates can do the same by gathering in the event Live Blog for their very own BarCamp.

We are looking for volunteers to run sessions, so if you are a remote participant and have something to share, please leave a comment on this post, or send a tweet to @iwmwlive.

Warning: the idea for this session is blatantly stolen from Nick DeNardis’ EDU Checkup. Blame him!

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”
– John 8:7

So that’d be me then?!

I’ve run this session at a couple of previous barcamps and it seems to have gone down reasonably well (based on the fact I’ve got out of the room alive) so I figured it was worth suggesting for IWMW 2010.

The idea is simple – as many short website reviews as you can cram into a 30 minute session.  In the past I’ve used the same basic format as EDU Checkup:

• 10 second test: show then hide the homepage then try to remember as much as possible.
• ~5 minute review: surf around the site looking for things of interest – as Roy Walker would say, “say what you see”.
• Ratings: scores out of 100 for design, content and code.

Unlike Nick’s podcasts, Slate My Website is filmed in front of a live studio audience which allows for mob mentality! At each stage everyone in the session can chip in their feedback.

The reviews are voluntary (although Phil Wilson did suggest a spinning wheel in case volunteers aren’t forthcoming!) and at some point the tables are turned against the main reviewer to make sure it’s “fair”.

So what do you think of the idea? I was planning to run it myself but I’m likely to be quite busy next Tuesday so if someone would like to volunteer to do the main reviews then that’d be great – I have slides prepared for it and everything!

As there will be a good few TERMINALFOUR Site Manager users at this years event again we are trying to gauge interest in a Barcamp session or a meeting after the main event. If you are interested and are attending then please email laura.murphy@terminalfour.com with your details and preference.

The suggested slots are:

1. Barcamp
Day 2
Tuesday 13 July
BARCAMPS (14:15-15:30)

2. Post-event Workshop
Day 3
Wednesday 14 July 13:30

BarCamps have been a part of IWMW for the past two years and they’ve proved to be really popular. A BarCamp is defined in Wikipedia as a user generated conference whose content is provided by participants. At IWMW events they are impromptu sessions that are not planned too much in advance but often evolve through the experience had by delegates at the event – short, informal knowledge sharing sessions!

However we don’t mind a little bit of planning and they are also an opportunity for people to give the presentation they wanted to submit to the call, but for some reason couldn’t get in on time. They are a chance to talk about:

• A technology you are currently working with (you could demonstrate the technology)
• A project you are currently working on
• A discussion area you feel strongly about
• Anything you can think of related to the Web and HE/FE

Alternately you could run a user group or just get a lot of people together to ask what they think about something. Basically anything goes!

This year we have a 1 hour 15 minute slot for BarCamps on Tuesday (day 2) afternoon. We’d like to have 30 minutes for a BarCamp with 15 minutes change over time. We have 9 rooms available but are also happy for people to use the bar, restaurant or sit outside (if the weather suits). There should be good WiFi access around the venue so anywhere goes too. This means that we have 18+ slots for people to use.

We’ll have a sign-up board available in the information area but you are also welcome to float your BarCamp ideas on the blog or send your idea over to me.

Further information is available from the IWMW 2010 BarCamp page.

The dilema over creating inhouse versus buying-in a solution is not a new one for Web managers or IWMW. Over the last 14 years during which IWMW has been running there have been quite a few sessions asking us to think about the pros and cons or both. For example in 2007 we facilitated a panel session entitled Dealing with the Commercial World: Saviour or Satan? and back in 2003 we had a session on Content Management – Buy or Build?.

In the past different institutions have leaned in different directions driven by different agendas. However today we are all united by a common agenda – cost cutting. We are now working in an environmemt where institutions may place much more emphasis on buying cost-effective software rather than use inhouse developement.

At this year’s IWMW you will have opportunity to hear about various products available. As well being sponsored by commercial organisations (Jadu and TerminalFour) we will also have an exhibition where a number of commercial organisations will be able to tell you about their products.

IWMW is also an opportunity to hear about other institution’s experiences with software products. For example James Lappin and Peter Gilbert, University of the West of England will be talking about The impact of MS SharePoint in Higher Education and Richard Brierton, University of Sheffield will be talking about their upgrade of Polopoly: a commercial CMS.

As delegates you should also take advantage of the opportunity to network with others and ask about their experiences. You’ll be able to do this in person at the event and also online through this blog. You can also share your own experiences either online or by giving a BarCamp.