Difference between revisions of "Team:Aalto-Helsinki/humhub"
(sidenav and background) |
m (minor text edit, hub to Hub and facebook to Facebook) |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
<li><a href="#" data-scroll="toolsmatter"><h3>Tools Matter</h3></a></li> | <li><a href="#" data-scroll="toolsmatter"><h3>Tools Matter</h3></a></li> | ||
<li><a href="#" data-scroll="opinion"><h3>Other People's opinions</h3></a></li> | <li><a href="#" data-scroll="opinion"><h3>Other People's opinions</h3></a></li> | ||
− | <li><a href="#" data-scroll="promise"><h3>The Promise of | + | <li><a href="#" data-scroll="promise"><h3>The Promise of HumHub</h3></a></li> |
<li><a href="#" ><h3 style="border-top:solid;">To the top</h3></a></li> | <li><a href="#" ><h3 style="border-top:solid;">To the top</h3></a></li> | ||
<li><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Community" ><h3>To the Parent Page</h3></a></li> | <li><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Community" ><h3>To the Parent Page</h3></a></li> | ||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
<h2>Tools matter</h2> | <h2>Tools matter</h2> | ||
− | <p>An example of how the | + | <p>An example of how the Hub can be customized is the integration of ’Team seeker’ and ’Biobrick seeker’, made by Aalto-Helsinki 2014, which can be used directly from within the Hub. This allows users to search for other teams or Biobricks within the same working environment.</p> |
− | <p>The ability to customize the | + | <p>The ability to customize the Hub according to the need of iGEM teams could be taken further by letting anyone design plugins, such as Helsinki’s seekers, to be integrated. As the whole system is open source, the whole system could be offered for users to modify completely and set up their own Hub for example to test new plugins or functions. These could later on be integrated in the main Hub.</p> |
<p>Another idea that was discussed was a more readily available overview not only over all teams, but also with a short summary of what each team is aiming for. This would both make it easier to gain insight of other projects and also simplify the process of finding potential collaboration partners.</p> | <p>Another idea that was discussed was a more readily available overview not only over all teams, but also with a short summary of what each team is aiming for. This would both make it easier to gain insight of other projects and also simplify the process of finding potential collaboration partners.</p> | ||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
<p>We assumed that the communication problems weren’t only issues in Stockholm and Aalto-Helsinki, but to get more information about the communication platforms and collaborating practices within iGEM teams, Aalto-Helsinki launched a team questionnaire.</p> | <p>We assumed that the communication problems weren’t only issues in Stockholm and Aalto-Helsinki, but to get more information about the communication platforms and collaborating practices within iGEM teams, Aalto-Helsinki launched a team questionnaire.</p> | ||
− | <p>The questionnaire consisted of multiple choice questions and aimed to gather information about the different platforms teams used to communicate with other teams and also how teams find each other to start collaborations. By August 5th 23 teams had replied to the questionnaire. Of these only one team felt there was no need for a better collaboration platform. This team used Facebook and email to stay in touch with their collaborating partners. 7 other teams also said they use Facebook and email (and | + | <p>The questionnaire consisted of multiple choice questions and aimed to gather information about the different platforms teams used to communicate with other teams and also how teams find each other to start collaborations. By August 5th 23 teams had replied to the questionnaire. Of these only one team felt there was no need for a better collaboration platform. This team used Facebook and email to stay in touch with their collaborating partners. 7 other teams also said they use Facebook and email (and Facebook and email only) to collaborate, but hoped for a better platform. This led us to believe that the wish for a new platform was not only due to the clutter of different platforms. Nearly half (11) of the respondents used more than two platforms, and we thought that they might be having some trouble juggling between the platforms. 17 of our respondents used social media to find the collaborating teams and 19 teams use social media as their collaboration platform (the only or among others). We suggest that this will make collaborating with e.g. Chinese teams very difficult, since they do not have access to Facebook, and instead use their own social media platforms. Facebook is also less common all around Asia than in Western countries. This disrupts the whole point of collaborating, as it is difficult to find teams around the world. From the survey respondees 6 teams did not collaborate, but 5 of these had looked for collaborators. All of these teams also replied that they had had problems contacting other teams. This is probably the main reason why they aren’t collaborating with anyone, but it might also be that they haven’t been able to find but a few interesting teams who unfortunately haven’t replied.</p> |
</section> | </section> |
Revision as of 12:47, 13 September 2015