PIC.edu Survey Review Internet2 Presence & Integrated Communications Working Group Fall Member Meeting, 2007

History of the PIC Working Group The Presence and Integrated Communications (PIC) Working group was formed in the summer of PIC fosters the deployment of integrated realtime communication technologies through demonstrations, tutorials, and initiatives in broad collaboration with the private sector and open-source initiatives.

Key Terms Presence is information about a person's availability for communication over a network, from basic on/off network awareness to rich presence attributes such as user activity, geographical location, and device capabilities Integrated Communications involves multiple forms of communications, working together

PIC Projects & Demonstrations Indianapolis, Oct 2003 Presence Elements: location (manual); room session name; session end time Honolulu, Jan 2004 and Arlington, Apr 2004 Presence Elements: location (automatic); room session name; session end time; per-room internet weather PIC-SER - A workgroup “package” implementing Presence and Integrated Communications, based on the SIP Express Router (SER). The PIC.edu project, which begins with a survey

PIC.edu Objectives Make it simpler for institutions to deploy a IM&P solution which will interoperate with other institutions Facilitate a broad deployment of federated IM&P across higher ed institutions Over time, experiment with richer presence elements such as location, scheduling

The PIC.edu Survey A survey intended to gauge interest and to inform the project Sent out to a sampling (just over 50) of member institutions in September 17 responses (about 33%!) were received and recorded

Survey Question 1

Survey Question 2

Survey Question 3

So what’s important? Rated importance on a 1-5 scale Some of the top rated features:

Survey Question 5

Survey Question 6

Survey Question 7

Survey Question 8

Survey Question 9

Survey Question 14

Observations From Q1 - most haven’t deployed; Q2 - most people want to Jabber is used quite broadly Most of the clients we asked about are in use, and people listed others as well as others: Zephyr, Horizon Wimba Live Classroom, Novell Groupwise IM Standards-based and IM are the only two features that got a 66% or higher "most useful" rating. These features are the core of the pic.edu concept. Other key features: Secure protocols and encrypted communications, including presence updates and contact list retrievals Integration/compatibility with existing communications package, e.g. part of a unified communications solution containing voice, , and IM Group chat, application sharing, and file sharing Client control of presence capabilities, such as the availability of devices/media (e.g. muting, lens cap on camera) Works out of the box, with easy feature navigation and conservative default values for privacy and security 75% don’t have standardized naming, 100% have no way to find names -- is this because these are not needed, or for some other reason?

Possible Conclusions Survey shows both a need for PIC.edu, and an awareness of that need Q14 (want to participate?) - 41% yes, 35% depends Next Steps?

Next Steps Select client / server candidates for PIC.edu Document recommended practices Package initial PIC.edu release Find initial deployment group for v1.0 Enable participant collaboration Calls, Mailing Lists The PIC.edu package itself! Line up PIC.edu project software developers to help with extensions beyond version 1.0

Contact The PIC WG Mailing list The PIC.edu advisory board