Behind Glass Walls

Here we go! I’m involved with a student consulting team at QUT. Our task was to create a Business Proposal to encourage the QUT Library to genuinely adopt Web 2.0 technologies and techniques. The team consists of:

• Sarah Killey,
• Darren Cann,
• Sean Marshall
• Donald Gee
• and me!

We’ve really tried to cover a wide range of areas, and think we really can show solid reasons for the uptake of Enterprise 2.0. As part of our report, we produced a video, detailing the content of the report in audio and visual form. Enjoy!

This post is a continuation from my previous post, looking at some of the issues in collaboratively constructing documents. There are a huge range of options available for collaboratively producing documents. From sharing a file via USB or file hosting website to online editing and annotation, each method is best suited to different purposes. The main considerations include:

• Control:  Where is the document stored? What happen when services/people are not available?
• Security: How easy is it to control who can access the document? What system is used for authentication?
• Versioning: Are different versions stored and are they clearly organised?
• Document Type: File/desktop app (eg. pdf, doc or odt)? Browser-based (eg. wiki, word processing)?
• Formatting, Layout and Markup Language:
  1. Plain Text (“lowest common denominator”) – no formatting
  2. lightweight markup (WikiText, BBCode, Textile) – simple to compose, easy to read in plain text form
  3. WYSIWYG (MS Word, OpenOffice.org, LaTeX) – document preparation systems with full formatting support

In looking at these attributes it is clear that using a Wiki for a sensitive or critical document may not be the best choice. Similarly, sharing a MS Word document via USB drive will quickly cause chaos through incomplete or confused revisions. It is necessary to determine the above attributes before choosing a method of creating the document.

There are a huge range of options when it comes to online collaborative document editing. How do we choose something that matches the needs and knowledge of an organisation, a community group, or a university assignment group? He’s my first look at some comparisons:

Wiki

The most Web 2.0 way to appraoch document editing. Gains in ease of access and use, with losses in security, formatting and overall structure.

eg. Wikipedia, Confluence, PBWorks, WikiSpaces, WikiMatrix (comparisions)

• are usually intended for on-screen display
• may use a special ‘wiki’ markup rather than WYSIWYG or HTML
• generally put emphasis on recording changes and authors
• can have anything from no restrictions to strict, role-based authentication in company intranets
• have a number of pages and incorporate internal linking as a core feature
• are intended to be constantly evolving
• allow pages to be created and removed with ease
• do not impose structure, relying on links and searching for navigation
• rely on guidelines and undoing actions

Some info from the Wiki Wikipedia article.

Single Document Editing

Applying Web 2.0 ideas and tools to a very common issue. Allows concurrent, direct editing, at the expense of formatting power, often requiring remote hosting or interaction with external companies.

eg. Google Docs, Zoho, Huddle,

• are generally a single page
• usually aim to produce a ‘final version’, when the document will be reviewed or made read-only
• are intended to be edited simultaneously
• tend to have a structure and format
• promote drafting before editing the document
• use WYSIWYG editors

Online Document Sharing

The least effective way to version and edit a document, but allows for the most formatting power, control over access and provides a huge array of features.

eg. Box.net, XDrive, Files Anywhere

• usually using Word or plain text files (may include pdf, OpenDocument, .docx)
• most difficult form of collaboration
• each computer requires a browser and the software to read the file
• are usually in a semi-complete form
• allow for comments or notes
• make more powerful formatting tools available
• can be backed up or moved easily

I’ll do another post in the next few days talking about common issues with document management, and how the three methods above can help or hinder the process.