The Charge:
The Future plans subsection of the RUSA Technology Task Force for Virtual Membership will make recommendations for programmatically addressing RUSA’s technology needs for membership. These recommendations will include a plan for the Division’s ongoing and long range technology plans for RUSA that consider member needs, continued funding, staff and member support, and a structure of accountability for meeting these continuing needs.
Recommendations account for each of the following areas; a program for identifying new/emerging and affordable technologies for recording conference programming and making them available to members online, identifying and supporting shifting ways of making virtual membership a reality including video conferencing etc and emerging technologies for delivering content beyond conference materials, and ongoing evaluations for usability of website and online tools.
The overarching framework of a long range technology plan for RUSA includes funding to purchase or develop and trial the technology for virtual membership, and the ongoing necessary support for applying those technologies. A long range technology plan for RUSA will include a focus on member participation and enhancing the virtual member experience, as well as the sustainability of this initiative independent of shifting personalities or priorities with in ALA. Each year, RUSA should plan for budget needs related to virtual membership and related technology acquisitions and support for the following five years.

Evidence (resources/thinking items/support links):

Synthesis:

Recommendation:
It is recommended that this technology plan includes; a five year plan for budgetary support and staff time to trial, acquire, and provide support for recommended hardware and software to ensure the sustainability of this critical area. It is further recommended that responsibility for these considerations be assigned to an existing or new unit within RUSA that will be accountable for ensuring that the technology needs of virtual membership continue to be met in the future.

The Charge:

What is the current state of the RUSA Web presence post ALA Web update? WE need an expert review of the website, blog, and wiki for usability and also whatever can be done to make them more collaborative and community building.

Evidence (resources/thinking items/support links):

RUSA Blog: http://rusa.ala.org/blog/

RUSA Web: http://ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/index.cfm

RUSA Wikis: http://wikis.ala.org/stars_org/index.php/Main_Page & http://wikis.ala.org/rusatoolkit/index.php/Main_Page

One thought from MS: The three sites above do not seem to be linked in an obvious manner – unless I am missing it.

CL Thoughts:  Need uniform look/branding (wikis are different, pref. make the sites seamless), clear cross-linking, plenty of places for user feedback (comments, fix me! links, volunteer links, etc.), usability studies (we can do quick-and-dirty ones unless y’all are hoping to publish this stuff).  Maybe get ClickHeat installed to evaluate what users are looking for most from the site.

Is information being duplicated between these four sites?  Can anything be done to *reduce* the workload and/or complexity of information delivery?

Searching:  RUSA website’s search shows results from all ALA.  Wikis and blog both only search themselves.  Any way to search across all four sites and limit it just to RUSA?

MS: Agree about the uniform look. I investigated the side menu briefly from a very basic usability POV:

There seems to be some quirks. I think we need to find out about a full-scale usability test or requesting RUSA committee members to take a look, as we did with the full ALA site.

I have requested blog statistics from the RUSA Web person, as well as any stats from ALA IT. This may help see the bigger picture of use.

CL:  The RUSA blog is at the subdomain http://rusa.ala.org/, but when you go to that address (without the blog directory) it comes back with a 404 error.  Is there any reason that the RUSA website is not under the RUSA subdomain?  That just makes no sense to me.  Also, the blog requires users to register if they want to comment–this closed system prevents participation.

Synthesis:

Thought after looking at sites and stats: The RUSA sites need constant care and feeding to thrive. Without updated content, attention to details, and a view of the bigger picture of RUSA’s presence, the sites will not be used.

Recommendation:

The Charge:

Can RUSA become a content provider beyond conference content? Other divisions have built various ways to interact/share online. We want to build on the many people in RUSA who are experts and find a way to push out what they know and are willing to share. Examples: online learning model like SLJ Learning 2.0 or a VR leader making a hour long introduction to VR posted on our site so people trying to figure out where to start would have a primer.

What are the steps to create a RUSA clearing house on the website made up of rich media?  How do we highlight our expertise and find someway to capture and share it?

Evidence (resources/thinking items/support links):

First thoughts:

• It seems like this section of the task force is asking to build some kind of online social network or at least an organized warehouse of knowledge?
• Even though SLJ2.0 was mentioned, it seems that the purpose of this would be an ongoing project, not something limited overtime like SLJ2.0.
• By building and highlighting the work of the “RUSA experts” RUSA would be able to capitalize on this knowledge and better the association’s greater community.

The valid and feasible approach:

• It seems like RUSA could really expand the new module-type set up of all ALA websites and add a specialized page/section for this kind of endeavor.  Or, possibly, they could just revamp the “Professional Development” section (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/development/index.cfm).
• This type of approach would require RUSA to select a few experts who were willing to provide their knowledge and time to create new multimedia resources (blog, video, podcasts, etc.).
• It would be pretty easy to embed these types of materials online, so that wouldn’t take too much preparation.
• However, RUSA might have to provide some of the tools to the content creators and that would cost some funds depending on the author’s needs.

The still valid but less feasible approach:

• The more extreme measure would be to create some kind of online social network that highlights ALL RUSA members, but focuses on the “experts” as main content creators.  I do think that this would encourage RUSA members to be more involved with the association.
• There are a couple different methods for creating such a network.  I would suggest researching any of these:
  • A WordPressMU install that uses BuddyPress (when it is finalized).  BuddyPress has the potential to become the next great online social network that can be customized and built to specific needs.
  • Ning has already proven itself as a capable and somewhat customizable social network.
  • RUSA could capitalize on using a Facebook Group, but this wouldn’t be at the top of my list of suggestions.
• No matter what, if RUSA wants to facilitate an online space for member participation, the association will have to work to maintain participation and promote the space’s purpose and benefits to members.  The association just can’t expect buyin upon creation – it has to prove its purpose.

Synthesis:

RUSA can become a content provider beyond conference content and should exploit the knowledge of its network by offering a platform for a select group of members to present their knowledge.  While a variety of options are available that allow for social knowledge creation and dissemination, the “knowledge clearinghouse” approach seems to be the most feasible and valid over a longer period of time.

That being said, a “Learning 2.0″ program could be beneficial considering the marketing and social capital opportunities that exist for RUSA as an extension of the ALA.  In fact, an ALA-backed “Learning 2.0″ program co-sponsored by RUSA could bolster RUSA’s presence in the association and increase its membership.

Recommendation:

Two opportunities are recommended below.  The first option should be pursued with the second option as an optional program opportunity.

1) A static clearinghouse of articles

I recommend that RUSA exploit the new module setup of ALA websites and create a separate section(s) for storing informational web-based articles about topics that pertain to the RUSA network.  Such articles could implement the use of rich-media like audio recordings (i.e. podcasts) and screencasts, but at the minimum should include supplementary photographs (from flickr, possibly) and/or screenshots.

Authors of these articles should be invited by a RUSA chair member and selected based upon proven knowledge of a given topic.  However, there should always be an open call to the entire RUSA community to submit abstracts for potential articles.  An open call for submissions invites RUSA members to become more involved in the association and increases a sense of communtiy amongst members.

2) A Learning 2.0 program with or without ALA

To further enhance the knowledge of the existence of RUSA as an organization and as a vibrant community within ALA, RUSA should attempt to create a partnership with ALA to develop an ALA-wide Learning 2.0 program.  A committee should be formed of 3-5 knowledgeable RUSA members who could create the aims and develop the L 2.0 program.  ALA would serve as the marketing arm of the L 2.0 program and provide another assistance if necessary.  A non-ALA Learning 2.0 program could be sucessful as well and may not require as much planning.

The Charge:

Is there a way to make virtual membership a reality? If I have a computer in the committee room and the virtual member is at work and has the time off at the same time as the committee meeting, can we get him virtually in the meeting? Can he listen to us and talk to us, can we do a video conference where he can be seen and talk to us? What do we need to make that happen and how much does it cost?

Evidence (resources/thinking items/support links):

What initially began as a charge to investigate how members of RUSA committees could “virtually” attend onsite committee meetings held during conferences has expanded to address a larger need for virtual collaboration amongst RUSA members throughout the year. Although the details of how to achieve these two goals will vary, each do have the same three components that should be considered and addressed:

1) People with the right tools-

2) Connecting to an accessible and viable network-

3) Joining together on a stable and scalable platform.

1) People with the right tools:

a. This point addresses the “end user” issues.

i. In the case of virtual meeting attendance this includes the committee members physically located in one place at one time as well as the virtual committee members physically located throughout the country.

ii. In the case of virtual collaboration this includes all committee members wishing to collaborate online with other members – no time constraints.

iii. Tools include things like network enabled PCs or laptops, sound cards, microphones, webcams.

iv. These tools enable each person (or group of people) attached to a device to communicate with one another.

v. Costs associated: webcams and microphones (many models available for under $100)

2) Connecting to an accessible and viable network

a. This point addresses the “network connectivity” issues.

i. Committees meeting in person during conferences cannot rely upon free WiFi connectivity in convention centers or hotels to meet their network needs. Availability, bandwidth speed, and security are all unknown variables.

ii. Utilization of data “aircards” (provided by most major cellular providers) is one method to ensure that the committee meeting onsite is accessible to any virtual member.

iii. Costs associated:  approximate cost of cellular (data) aircard: anywhere from $150-$400 each. Monthly rate for data service: $50-$75.

3) Joining together on a stable and scalable platform

a. This point addresses the web based hosting application that will serve to connect committee members – either for a preset period of time (during a conference), or for an ongoing period of time (for members wishing to engage in virtual collaboration throughout the year)

i. Several applications exist to host meetings: Gotomeeting.com, webex.com, elluminate.com, dimdim.com and many others. A key point here is to utilize a stable (here today and here tomorrow) vendor/application.

ii. Other applications can be used by members for ongoing collaboration: blogs, wikis, etc.

iii.  Costs associated for web hosted meetings:  free-approx $100/per month.  Much depends upon number of participants and number of hosted sessions.

iv.  Costs associated with online collaboration (blogs, wikis, etc):  mostly free, with exception for some wiki sites that charge minimal amount for “commercial” (not personal) use.

Synthesis:

There needs to be alternatives in place that will allow RUSA members to collaborate and contribute to both “official” committee meetings and unofficial working groups.  Costs to RUSA will be incurred for making the committee meetings held during conferences accessible in realtime for virtual committee members.  Is this a goal RUSA wishes to pursue?  Or should RUSA focus on the asynchronous committee work that can be achieved with little or no cost to RUSA?

Recommendation:

The Charge:

Is it possible to find an affordable way to record conference programming and post it to either you tube or the RUSA site? If we cannot do that, can we at least podcast it and what would that cost us?

Evidence (resources/thinking items/support links):

• Two projects:  videocast & podcast
• Evaluate scope of video/podcasting agenda for RUSA (i.e. how many concurrent sessions)
• Cost out video/podcasting equipment (recording, processing, etc.)
• Cost out software needed.
• Estimate scope of training, personnel, processing time needed
• Initial resources to review (ongoing–please feel free to add links!):
  • Make Internet TV
    
  • YouTube How to Create a Videocast
  • ALA’s Videos–how do they do them?

  Info from MSU’s Podcasting project equipment:

  • x15;x15;     13x14;x14; MacBook with iLife x12;x12;06 – $1,099.00
  • x15;x15;     1.66GHz MacMini with iLife x12;x12;06 – $799.00
  • x15;x15;     Microphone, Desktop stand, and windscreen – $64.57
  • x15;x15;     Marantz Digital Recorder – $699.99
  • x15;x15;     Books about Podcasting – $500.00
  • x15;x15;     Total Podcasting Package – $3162.56

Synthesis:

Recommendation: