The use of ConferenceXP for this is one possibility. David Mycue has a server up and running. It may not be a long term solution since it is a Microsoft experiment and isn't slated to be product.
David is also bringing up a Cisco MeetingPlace server for evaluation.
Steve started a list of criteria for collaboration services.
Cisco is also interested in doing a case study involving SMA - though that may be dependent on our using the Cisco product.
2 Comments
Steven R Lerman
As we look at collaboration software tools, we should have a list of criteria to compare various options. Here is my first pass at a list of criteria. They are in no particular order. Feel free to add or comment on any of these criteria.
Steve Lerman
*************
1. Client software needed
-Is there a separate client application that needs to run on each client maching?
-Are there plugins or other browswer enhancements needed?
-If the client is browser-based, what browsers does it work on?
2. Is the system peer-to-peer or server-based?
-If it's server-based, what type of server is needed?
-Is the server remote or on premises?
3. Licensing terms and conditions
-Initial cost?
-Per session cost?
-Per user cost?
-Operating cost?
4. Issues related to ports used and firewalls
5. Security of information shared in meetings
6. Whiteboarding capabilities
7. Shared application capabilities
-Can you share an application, or just the entire screen?
8. Support for audio
9. Support for video
10. Archiving capabilities
11. Platforms supported - Windows, OSX, Linux, other
12. Ease of use - for initiator of conference and other users
13. Reputation and reliability of vendor
14. CPU, bandwidth, RAM, load on server (if any) and other performance requirements
15. Ease with which software integrates with MIT's authentication services
Dennis Baron
Thanks - you've just killed the the theory that Faculty will never use a Wiki
.
I moved your list to a new page so people can add/edit.