Engage, Em power & Mobile Enable! The Mobile Web Framework UC Panelists: Rose Rocchio – UCLA • Tom Tsai – UC Berkeley • Mojgan Amini – UCSD • Rich Trott ‐ UCSF •
Introducing our Panel • Rose Rocchio, Director ECTG, OIT, UCLA • Tom Tsai, Manager, Architecture & Middleware, UC Berkeley • Mojgan Amini, Manager UXT, UC San Diego • Richard Trott, Director, UCSF
What is this about? • The Mobile Trend • The UC Mobile Strategy • Device/Technology Agnostic • Mobile Web Framework as Enabler • Benefits (hard & soft) • Savings & ROI • Engagement: Staff, Researchers & Students • What’s next: • App (Store) Sharing Environment • MWF as platform for Research • Mobile Phone as “Clicker”
Mobile is global half the planet has a mobile device (3.4 billion people) mobile data usage is expected to grow 10 fold over the next four years by 2015, 90% of the earth will have mobile coverage
MWF Background & Status • UCLA Mobile launched in Sept 2010 – 22 Campus units involved – MWF as a platform for Innovation • Student engagement • Research Platform – mhealth, crowd sourcing etc • Made MWF Code Available Spring 2011 • UC Mobile Collaboration Status: @ 8/10 • 5 Campus mobile sites launched • 3 Mobile Campus mobile sites in development • 2 Campuses evaluating Framework
MWF Core Principles • Device Agnostic • Graceful Degradation • Unified mobile presence • Technology Platform Independent • Scalable, distributed architecture • Modern web standards (HTML 5 , CSS 3, etc…)
Key Take Aways: MWF is: • Device Agnostic • Technology Agnostic PHP Apps .NET Java Apps Apps MWF (CSS, HTML5, JS) Epic Ruby Apps Apps Python Apps
Com m unity Collaboration Student built Mobile Apps Researchers ( mHealth etc.) The MWF is an example of a Distributed Distributed Developers Collaboration : The MWF Campus Central strategy relies on IT leveraging both students and faculty MWF researchers MWF Board
11-12 Investm ent & Savings SYSTEM Investment Analysis TOTAL Type of Staff FTE • In House MWF Core development 1.63 1.50 Campus Mobile Management • Unit specific 0.71 2011 ‐ 12 for MWF infrastructure & hosting support • Staff only 4.33 Campus Mobile Presence ‐ Central (tools, training, support) 2.20 Campus Mobile Presence ‐ Distributed Totals for Staff/Students UC Saved: Total FTE investment by Campus: 10.36 Units on campus utilizing the MWF 53 ~$1.5 Million FTE Estimate to mobilize w/o MWF 0.50 26.50 Estimated Savings in FTE by using MWF 15.26 0.20 Avg FTE cost to mobilize data/unit
UC Berkeley and the MWF http://m.berkeley.edu Launched: March 2011 404 Not Found
Im plem enting UC Berkeley’s Mobile Strategy 1. Leverage 2. Central campus mobile site 3. Web App Mobile Use Cases 4. Innovation 5. Data Freedom https://wikihub.berkeley.edu/display/itac/UC+Berkeley+Campus+Mobile+Strategy
Power to the People!
10 Apps in 3 days…
UC San Diego em braces MWF ulted 7 pus IT Libraries Student Affairs Summer Spring Spring oups 2009 2011 2011 ‐ present iPhone app m.ucsd.edu Proliferation of mobile apps! ated 7 Winter Spring g Mobile 2010 2011 New Mobile Strategy Self ‐ service tools, decorators, eworks Evaluation & Selection governance http://mwf.ucla.edu/edu11/mwrs
UCSF: A Unifying Experience • MWF’s open and collaborative environment
20 12 MWF Conference • Save the date: Sept. 5 th – 7 th @ UCLA • Open to the MWF Community + Public – Educational and student rates – Special invitation to CSU’s and California CC’s • Session tracks for break out sessions – MWF development and architecture – MWF as a platform for research and mHealth
MWF Crowd Sourcing Contests • MWF Contest Process (first piloted by Berkeley) – Host an MWF training Seminar – Submission eligibility: demonstrate value of MWF • Ease of use • Speed of development • Ease of deployment – Defined eligibility, then use a Random drawing • MWF Conference contest = 8 apps in 2 wks • MWF Student contest = 6 apps – over the break
MWF Conference - 8 Apps
UCLA MWF Student Contest • Evening workshop was held on 11/28 • 28 Attendees • Students have break to create app • iPad2 was the prize • 7 Entries, one was disqualified • Prize was a random drawing
6 Student MWF Contest Apps
MWF 1.3 Roadm ap • Forms UI and Javascript Libraries • Messages UI • Customizable Home Page / “Preferences" • Javascript Unit Tests • Javascript Decorators • Javascript Interactivity Libraries • Javascript ‐ based Handlers • Lean CSS Markup Entities • Basic Native Container • Form Decorator
MWF 1.4 Roadm ap • Mobile App Sharing Environment • Enhanced Native Container • Installation Process • Unit Tests • Tablet and Desktop Support • Software as a Service Support
Mobile Web Response System • In Beta this spring • Interactive Polling for classrooms – Geo ‐ distributed classes – Online ‐ Synchronous Office Hours • Will work with all Internet enabled devices • Current market quiet large and burden on students is significant
MWF App (store) Environm ent • Phase I – Apps shared Local to an Institution • Phase II – Peer to Peer ‐ web service gets MWF Apps from Community instances • Phase III – Federated Aggregator/Caching – Federated Model – Apps Vetted by each Institution – Need Mobile Web App Standards for this to work – Multiple frameworks working together ? • Phase IV – CENIC/Internet2 or IMS GLC App Registry
Vision: MWF Com m unity Apps Student Great Cool Best TA Scandinavian Generic Cool places Garbage Created Restaurants Research Review flash cards flashcard app to Study Watch Study tools nearby Opportunities Session Best UCSD German Flash Calculus Wellness Garbage LOSE your Finding a International Housing Cards Study Tips Activities Watch freshman 15 Mentor Experiences Guide Student Cool Best TA How to get a Generic Local San Francisco Garbage Created Research Review summer job flashcard app Internships Hangouts Watch Study tools Opportunities Session
Educause ACTI – MWF Working Group
How to Get Involved: Main website : http://mwf.ucla.edu Get the Source: https://github.com/ucla/mwf/wiki/ Join the List serve: click here (http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi ‐ bin/mailman/listinfo/mwf) Attend the MWF Conference in Sept 5 th – 7th Questions?
Appendix
MWF App Environment vision – ph2 UCLA Mobile UCSF UCSD Ethics Lang conv Current UC Santa UC Affairs Barbara Berkeley UCR UCI
UCLA Mobile – Google Analytics
The Approach: Native vs. Web • Native Application – Con: Lack of cross ‐ platform portability – Pro: Commonly have robust APIs and features – Con: Central architecture and distribution • Web Application – Pro: High portability among comparable browsers – Con: Apparent lack of deep features and APIs – Pro: More flexible with architecture and distribution – Pro: Maintenance of application significantly lower
Recommend
More recommend
