IWB Interoperability

[crispinw]

I'm not a whiteboard expert but am interested in this issue from the interoperability and SALTIS perspective - discussion of SALTIS is in a seperate thread.

I understand from Margaret Allen on the NAACE list that Promethean Flipchart will now work on anyone's board - but I understand from steve that this does not apply to ActivStudio (presumably this is a larger toolbox than Flipchart alone?)

There are concerns around this issue, particularly in the light of Becta's common file format initiative and whether this will address the issues of whiteboard interoperability - if issues there are.

It seems to me, prima facie, to be anti-competitive that any software should insist on any hardware being present, or vice-versa (freely available drivers excepted). I think there are particular concerns if, having a particular software program is driving you down the route of installing a particular voting system as well as a particular whiteboard.

Do people generally see this as a problem and would they agree that whiteboards, voting systems and software should be completely decoupled, so that any will work with any other?

Crispin.

[russdev]

I am in two minds about this software I can understand why active, smart go down route they do not totally out of this world for a ie board maker to have software that works only with there board.

I do like the fact that smart software can install anywhere except with another companies board.

The open format on other hand is where I think it is interesting this means the "we must use this software becomes redundant" as any software will open it that supports open format. Think that ie software must support this standard in full. A way to make this happen is make part of requirement to be on 'becta approved list' etc

Russell

[Ric_]

I've split this off from another topic so that it may be discussed properly...

In some respects, I think that the open file format will be brilliant for schools. Teachers would be able to produce content that could easily be taken with them around the school and indeed into other schools.

An open file format should therefore enhance the opportunities to share materials.

The only problem I can foresee is the stifling of innovation. If, for arguments sake, you have 5 manufacturers using the open standard and one manufacturer develops a new feature, how do they exploit their new feature without giving it away to the others for free? Before long, it is possible that a 'stagnation' could occur and we would not see IWBs developing as quickly as they have in the past year or two.

[CyberNerd]

Becta have commissioned RM to 'develop a common industry-wide standard'
http://news.becta.org.uk/display.cfm...658&catID=1633
and an open source IWB file viewer. I'm just hoping that RM don't tie any of their code to a particular platform,

[webman]

I wouldn't hold your breath CyberNerd, we all know what happened with the QCA software.

[dhicks]

> Do people generally see this as a problem and would they agree
> that whiteboards, voting systems and software should be completely
> decoupled, so that any will work with any other?

Depends how you been by "should". It would be nice, from the consumer's point of view, if they did. However, it's advantageous for a manufacturer to have a bunch of users with content created in their own propriatory format, unable to switch to a rival's product, so I don't think IWB manufacturers are actually going to get around to creating a common whiteboard format any time soon.

I figure the answer lays with third-party software of some kind. Preferably, software that integrates with VLE systems in some way. I wrote such a system in FLash/PHP for Moodle, but PHP is rather limited for this task (a language designed to handle web page requests, an inherently multi-user task, with no kind of decent semaphore / monitor system?). I aim to try again in Python as a stand-alone application.

--
David Hicks

[localzuk]

I think the way forward with this is to tie such a format in with Flash or similar - that way, new features can be implemented by manufacturers with their own software packages and other manufacturers could then 'play' the content but not be able to necessarily create the same...

[CyberNerd]

I think the way forward with this is to tie such a format in with Flash or similar

I don't think flash is such a good idea, ideally the format needs to be open.
A VLE/web based method is clearly the way forward though.

The problem is going to be that whatever system Becta/RM come up with there are no carrots and no sticks to enforce it. Companies can overcharge schools whatever bulls*it lock in rubbish they like. I think it should be taken further and legislated against.

[russdev]

Later on will post info rm open standard but key thing here is format is being released as open source.

For now got to carry on with getting dinner ready..

Russell.

[dhicks]

[localzuk wrote:]
> I think the way forward with this is to tie such a format in with Flash
> or similar - that way, new features can be implemented by
> manufacturers with their own software packages and other
> manufacturers could then 'play' the content but not be able to
> necessarily create the same...

This sounds more like the issues that SCORM/IMS are designed to deal with.

[CyberNerd wrote:]
> Companies can overcharge schools whatever bulls*it lock in rubbish
> they like. I think it should be taken further and legislated against.

Companies can, indeed, charge locked-in customers over-the-odds for systems, but then that is what companies do (and have always done), and I don't think legislation is the answer. I figure the less legislation, the better - just a nice open market that lets system compete on technical merits.

I figure an IWB-of-tomorrow system might have the following features:

- Web based, runs on any platform (PC, Mac, Linux, maybe even
Phone/PDA (use that stylus for something!)).
- Available as a web-based hosted service or locally-installed software.
- Integrateable with VLE systems (probably via username/password
synch modules or single-sign-on mechanisms rather than more direct
integration (VLE code is crud)).
- Imports existing/future IWB (and other) file formats properly.
- Exports multiple formats (IWB formats would be nice, obviously, but
SCORM/IMS packaging might be an idea too).
- Acts as both read and write repository (with support for paid-for
content).

Now all we need is to get on and write it.

--
David Hicks

[dhicks]

> Later on will post info rm open standard but key thing here is format is
> being released as open source.

I read the link CyberNerd posted - it looks promising, like someone's got the right idea about how to go about it, anyway.

--
David Hicks

[CyberNerd]

Companies can, indeed, charge locked-in customers over-the-odds for systems, but then that is what companies do (and have always done), and I don't think legislation is the answer. I figure the less legislation, the better - just a nice open market that lets system compete on technical merits.

I don't have any problem with companies making money, my issue is that taxpayers (my!) money gets wasted. In many other countries it is the norm that government institutions must only use file formats that are open standards. Forcing open standards gives companies more incentive to develop better, inter-operable products, reduces cost and gives more choice.

There are several definitions of Open Standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

[russdev]

Thing to add to info cybernerd posted is this

The following is a summary of the approach to be taken by the project (which commenced on November 23rd)
:
1. Establish contact list and circulate information about the project, collect
sample whiteboard materials.
2. Devise an outline file specification, with features that are common to
whiteboard applications and yet sufficiently rich to enable content to be
useful to teachers. Test sample content against outline file format.
3. Circulate outline file format and gather feedback from whiteboard
application publishers, content publishers and other interested parties.
4. Devise a detailed file specification and supporting documentation.
5. Develop and test the library code, associated documentation and support materials, with appropriate open-source licence. The library will be C code and written for cross platform support.
6. Develop and test the java viewer application with appropriate open-source licence. The viewer will render files in common file format, and will allow on- screen manipulation, but will not enable editing or saving of files.
7. Provide limited technical support for publishers to integrate the library code into their own applications

Russell

[CyberNerd]

6. Develop and test the java viewer application with appropriate open-source licence. The viewer will render files in common file format, and will allow on- screen manipulation, but will not enable editing or saving of files.

Presumably this could be re-compiled as a .war file and run from a tomcat/jboss server, the RM QCA testing or CMIS eportal server might even be able to deliver it.

[dhicks]

> Develop and test the java viewer application

Java-based viewer, which would find loading Flash-based materials non-trivial (unless... transparent Flash layer over a Java Applet? Would that work?).

--
David Hicks