Attendees:

• Mark, Sven, Ryan, Paul, Rob, Dennis, Dan, Al

Notes:

• Discussions this week highlighted the issue of a lack of designer resource for the authoring tool.
• We will address this issue by Paul W, Sven and Daryl taking the lead on the design. Jointly, we can make around three days per week available to produce wireframes and work on the design deliverables. We acknowledged that with the proposed solution, it may take us up to three weeks to get ahead on the design stream.
  • Action: (Paul, Daryl, Sven): Schedule time to take on / lead on authoring tool design
• We agreed on the previous call that we would work in an agile fashion on the design stream. Mark will facilitate setting Paul, Sven and Daryl up to work in Redmine.
  • Action (Mark, by 26/02): Organise Paul, Daryl and Sven on Redmine
• We agreed to use Mockflow as the Design tool. All wireframes and comments will be captured and added there.
  • Action (Sven, 21/02): Set up Mockflow for the design team
  • Action (design team, by 26/02): Review early wireframes produced by Tony
• We agreed to add the developers to the weekly design call on Fridays. The call will be used to talk through and agree designs. Visuals will be produced first. Once agreement has been reached, we will write up use cases as per this use case document.
  • Action (Mark, by 26/02): Invite authoring tool developers to the regular Friday morning call.
• We talked through the principle of supporting the authoring tool on tablets and smartphones. During discussions this week, we agreed on the following principles. We agreed to work through the requirements for v0.1 individually and flag for each requirement, whether it should be supported on desktop/laptop, tablet and smartphone. This will help highlight the scope and inform the approach.
  • Not to make it difficult to achieve this later on by making short-term architectural decisions.
  • To be mindful of the balance between 'effort to achieve' and 'value added' (in short, we acknowledge we have to deliver the tool reasonably quickly and account for achieving the maximum benefit with the resources we have).
  • Action (design team and authoring tool developers, by 26/02): Rate v0.1 requirements
• We addressed the potential conflict between achieving great UI/UX vs. getting to v0.1 quickly. We agreed that this would best be addressed in an ongoing discussion between Daryl and Dennis.
• We also touched on the need for deriving architectural detail from the designs (e.g. when the designs are interpreted as single page + overlay or when a new page is needed; Rob's example). We agreed that Daryl is best placed to bridge the gap in discussions with Dennis and Rob.
• Design priorities: we listed the following priorities for wireframing, as the development team are at the stage of requiring guidance for these items given progress:
  • Content creation (adding / editing articles, blocks, components etc) is the key priority (Dennis)
  • Login
  • Content Creator Dashboard
  • Adding projects
  • Editing course structure
• Sprint planning exercise: Once up to speed, we will plan our first sprint during w/c 24/02.
  • Action (Mark, by 28/02): Sprint planning exercise with Paul, Daryl, Sven

Thanks
Sven