[samigo-team] design for extended matching

[Aaron Zeckoski]

OK, I will work with our UX resources to come up with something as a
proposal and we can discuss on the call next tuesday.
Thanks
-AZ


On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Jacqueline Mai Krueger
<jamai at stanford.edu> wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> If you have the resources to come up with the UI, then go for it. UCT's EMI,
> which seems to be optimized for supporting medical education, will meet
> Stanford's requirements so we don't need to invest more time in this area.
> Some members of the SAMigo working group have expressed interest in UCT's
> EMI so would probably be interested in what you are proposing to do to the
> existing matching question type. The next SAMigo working group conference
> call is Tuesday 10.18 11am (PDT). Call details can be found at
> https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/SAM/Samigo+Working+Group. You
> would be able to receive a lot of useful feedback from the group if you can
> step through your proposal; even better if you have something to show.
>
> Thanks,
> Jackie
>
>
> Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>
> Jackie,
> Would it possible for you and I to have a quick call on this? I am 90%
> confident that the UCT work is not going to meet our needs. I can
> share some details about what we need  but I think we just want to
> modify the existing matching item to support one to many matching and
> distractors. I was going to have our UX team come up with the UI for
> the authoring and delivery portions but my understanding is that your
> team prefers to do this (which is totally fine with me).
>
> What time is convenient to discuss?
> My number is 540-585-4299 or azeckoski @ skype
>
> :-)
> -AZ
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jacqueline Mai Krueger
> <jamai at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> Stephen and team at UCT defined the requirements for the Extended Matching
> Item question type. What they came up with satisfied the requirements from
> the Stanford Medical School instructors. I know that #1 of your requirements
> is addressed but not sure about #2. I conducted a usability review of the
> feature with a Medical School instructor back in February of this year and
> gave feedback to Stephen but have not seen the feature since so I don't know
> what progress has been made. I am attaching a spec of the feature that I
> reviewed back in February to give you a sense of what it looks like. Stephen
> will be a better person to ask detailed questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Jackie
>
> Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>
> Hi Jackie,
> In short, the requirements we are trying to implement are:
> 1) Allow matches of 1 to many (so A -> 1 and A -> 2) - currently
> matching is one to one
>
> 2) Allow dummy matching values which are wrong if used and should be
> omitted to get a 100% correct match
>
> So the item should include an option to enable matching for one to
> many items and dummy items.
> For example: A,B,C and options 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 : A -> 1, A -> 2, B -> 3,
> C -> 4, C -> 5 (6,7 are unused)
>
> If you want to have a quick call to discuss then I am available.
> My number is 540-585-4299 or I can call you.
> :-)
> -AZ
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Mai Krueger
> User Experience Specialist
> Academic Computing Services - CourseWork
> Stanford University
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Mai Krueger
> User Experience Specialist
> Academic Computing Services - CourseWork
> Stanford University
>



-- 
Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile