Child pages
  • HAWG - Tuesday September 12, 2017
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Details:

Tuesday September 5, 2017 - 10:00 AM Pacific Time



  1. Note Taker: Hui Zhang
  2. Discuss Design next steps with Gary Geisler

see Gary's questions: Gary suggests that not all his questions needed to be resolved for design but it will come eventually when developers create issues. 

The committee will provide feedbacks especially on aggregation to Gary ASAP to let him catch the development cycle.

    1. Download can happen to file, so could we use 'file' instead of 'object' in definition? 
    2. The term 'access' is ambiguous
      1. Gabriela suggests that 'access' can be a synonym of 'view'. Will change the documentation accordingly to use 'view' consistently.
    3. Aggregation of statistics - this issue needs some major clarification
      1. Should avoid 'double-counting' with aggregation: the committee will take action to in the coming week to think about how statistics should be counted at different aggregation levels.
    4. dashboard (R2, R3): 
      1. the dashboard is designed to show the top n collections (not all of them), look at 'report' for details of statistics of all collections (comments from Gary). A mockup from Gary on difference of dashboard vs. report will be helpful for discussion.
      2. the committee should clarify what information should be included such as Analytics (usage) and administrative activities.
    5. date range (R4): 
      1. the committee agree that a single date controller for the dashboard and the date range picker for generating reports
      2. a mockup will be helpful to everyone on board of the decision
    6. R5, R6: access is the synonym of view
    7. R7: it is ok to have a calendar widget for generating reports
    8. R8:
      1. the committee need to clarify how aggregation works to Gary
    9. R9: the committee need to decide whether the term 'object' equal to 'file'?
    10. R10: a total number is also needed for author profile etc.
    11. R11: duplicate to R15
    12. R12: similarly presented like R10 but a different statistics item
    13. R15: the committee agrees that 
      1. a moving window of 12 months of activity. for a new repo, the orphan months would just be blank.
    14. R16:
      1. R14, 15 are for the report
      2. R16 is on both the file and work showpages
  1. Review MS 1 prioritization:

Next Steps:

  1. The committee will provide feedbacks especially on aggregation to Gary ASAP to let him catch the development cycle by next week, especially on how aggregation should work at different institutions.
  2. Steve and the COUNTER group will meet in this week and create a wiki page for the finding.


  • No labels