Child pages
  • IU-NU Story Writing Session 2

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Corrected links that should have been relative instead of absolute.

February 20, 2012

In the second story writing session we began identifying the stories that should be worked on in the first year of development. Questions were brought up regarding what audience to target for a first release and the consensus was to address a broad user base (e.g. students, faculty, sys admins, librarians, etc.) with a focus on library needs and instructor/student needs for library owned material.


Stories were identified by what features they would lead to in the VoV system. We focused on:

1) Which of those features MUST be present for a minimally useful system.

2) What additional features are needed for a minimally useful system.


Main features for a minimally useful system were identified:

A player that works in multiple browsing platforms, is supported without additional software, has playlist capability, has clip making capability, and can be embedded/shared (Stories 4, 11, 13, 12)

A system that supports batch uploading of video and metadata, batch transcoding (Stories 37, 62)

A system that supports discovery of content through a search tool (Story 19)

A system that can be monitored by a system administrator to detect and troubleshoot problems (Story 58)

A system that is provided a test environment to try the system (Story 47)

 

Discussion points:

Where will video come from, and can we be agnostic about the source?

Can we support video downloads and high resolution viewing for special scenarios?