Managing Collaborative Efforts on the Web

CAUSE 96
San Francisco, CA
December 5, 1996

Noam H. Arzt, Ph.D.
Linda May, Ph.D.

Abstract

The World Wide Web is an effective tool to make University governance, planning, and other collaborative projects more open. The Web can widen the audience, get materials into the right hands faster and with less trouble, and create a self-documenting history. At the University of Pennsylvania, the Web has been used for just these purposes for several years. This presentation will serve as a tutorial for any college or university member who wants to use the Web to manage a committee or project. It includes examples from a technology planning task force, a restructuring team, and a collaborative research project. The tutorial focuses on opportunities, tactical mechanics, and pitfalls. It also explores the social and practical dynamics of managing a project so publicly.

Objectives

Increase openness
Reduce burden of document distribution
Improve speed of document distribution
Widen the audience, both on-campus and beyond
Create a self-documenting history

3 Examples

Technology planning:
Re-engineering/Restructuring:
Sponsored Research Project/Collaborative Research:

Features

As accessible as you want
Full multimedia capabilities

Charge to the committee, objectives, scope, process
Background material: Homegrown and links to elsewhere
Membership: With links to individuals or organizations
Housekeeping: Timetables, agendas
The public record: News and updates
Products and reports

Security

Both public and private areas can be established
The mechanics of privacy: Domain control, password protection

Rules in Flux

Muddy rules: Is it "family"? Is it "public"?
Rules in flux: New medium

Successful Techniques

Organization: take time to lay out site, but avoid paralysis of trying to get it perfect the first time
Have the discipline to continue what you start
Training: get the help you need, and train your audience on your purpose, approach and expectations
Collaboration: Web publishing is more friendly to collaboration than traditional document processing
Authoring with the Web in mind vs. converting material

Traps to Avoid

Too much process, not enough product
It has to be perfect or it's not worth publishing
Too ambitious, too hard to keep current
Unruly growth; don't be afraid to prune
Straightjacket format; rethink as the project evolves

File Types

HTML

Strengths Weaknesses

Very modular
Easy to create
Easy in integrate multimedia objects
Flexibility to create different views of the same information for different audiences

Long documents hard to view but easy to print
Modular documents hard to print but easy to view
May be difficult to present to non- networked viewers

Adobe Acrobat Format

Strengths Weaknesses

Can be created from virtually any "conventional" source (word processing, graphics, anything)
Retains look and feel of the original document
Easy to print
Distribution possible without losing control of source file
Viewer currently a free Netscape helper, soon to be built-in
Viewer available for Macintosh, Windows, and some Unix platforms
Files are small in size relative to source file
Files support color
Files support various additional features, including multiple display modes, hot WWW links

Several steps involved in creating file
Additional software required to create files
User needs to download entire file before viewing
Documents formatted for standard page size can be difficult to view

Graphics Files

Strengths Weaknesses

Image maps can be useful to guide user choices
"A picture is worth a thousand words"
Often good as a supplement to text
Some users may not have graphics capabilities
Need to create text alternatives for key pages
Graphics may be slow for dial-up users
Graphics are not always a good substitute for good text

HTML Authoring Tools: Feature Comparisons

MacUser Review
PC Computing Review
PC Magazine Review
Net Scout Review
TechWeb Review
Carl Davis's Review
ComVista Internet Solutions Listing
CNET Reviews

Questions?

Please address comments or questions to Dr. Noam Arzt, arzt@isc.upenn.edu or Dr. Linda May, may@isc.upenn.edu
[12/2/96]
URL: http://www.hln.com/noam/cause96/index.html

Strengths	Weaknesses
Very modular Easy to create Easy in integrate multimedia objects Flexibility to create different views of the same information for different audiences	Long documents hard to view but easy to print Modular documents hard to print but easy to view May be difficult to present to non- networked viewers

Strengths	Weaknesses
Image maps can be useful to guide user choices "A picture is worth a thousand words" Often good as a supplement to text	Some users may not have graphics capabilities Need to create text alternatives for key pages Graphics may be slow for dial-up users Graphics are not always a good substitute for good text