University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

Minutes of ITICC Meeting

January 18, 2001

3:40 p.m., 435 Physics

Graham Allan (Phys), Randal Barnes (CivE), John Baxter (Math), Tom Chase (ME), Tracey DeLaney (Astro), Tina Garrett (Math), Michael Greminger (ME), Andrew Hamann (ITSB), John Hickey (CSciE), Peter Hudleston (IT Stud Aff), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Kent Mann (Chem), Melissa Martyr-Wagner (CLA), Kent Mein (CSE&ITlabs), Roger Rusack (Phys), Tom Shield (AEM), Evan Skillman (Astro), Chris Thorp (BMEn), Jerry Wang (ITSB)

1) Status reports from CSci and ADCS

No reports of significant problems. LeMay noted that the door to ME 308 is now keyed to provide U-card access (as are now all the labs), and that the air conditioning in ME 308 has been repaired. Also, worn or broken furniture is being replaced in some labs. He also reported that ADCS had been having trouble getting consultants for the labs on Tuesdays and Thursdays (with some labs being closed at the start of the semester as a consequence), but that this is being addressed. Kachelmyer reported that so far no replacement has been found for Dan Bance.

2) Full Results of Computer Survey

Hudleston presented results of the computer survey, noting that about 550 students had responded (all IT undergraduates had been sent the e-mail questionnaire). He handed out several charts detailing the results (note: these will be placed on the web). The total number responding who identified themselves by year was 553 (127 freshmen, 101 sophomores, 118 juniors, 207 seniors). All students did not respond to all questions.

Key results noted (expanding on what was reported at the December meeting):

a) The labs in EE/CSci were used by more respondents than the other labs; that in CE was used by the fewest (students were not asked how much time they spent in each lab).

b) 23% of those responding (45% of freshmen, 28% of sophomores, 19% of juniors and 8% of seniors) reported not using the public labs at all.

b) Reported use of Lind 24 is suspect: many students confused this lab with Lind 26 (the ADCS lab across the corridor).

c) The UNIX machines and the Windows machines receive about equal use.

d) About a quarter of the respondents reported having to wait to get on a machine, at least some of the time. This was true for every lab. Seniors reported having to wait more than others (60% of those who responded to this particular question, 35% of those who responded to the survey), reflecting the fact that they use the labs more heavily as a group. The typical wait was 5 – 15 minutes.

e) 33% of those responding to the question (and 20% of those who responded to the survey) reported that they would have stayed on if the labs had remained open at closing time. Seniors were much more likely to report this than others (50% of those responding the question).

f) About 90% of those responding (93% freshmen, 87% seniors) have their own computer, mostly a new (less than 3 yrs old) desk top. 19% have lap tops. Nearly all use Windows operating system; 6% use Macintosh and 10% Linux.

g) Most use their own computer extensively for class work. 60% report use of more than 5 hrs per week, only 2% report not using their computer at all for class work.

Hudleston noted that about 100-150 of the respondents had added comments to their responses. As might be expected, most were complaints, although more than a few were complimentary. He presented a list of the points that had struck him most when scanning them. They are as follows:

a) Opening hours restrictive – need access to each type of machine 24/7

b) Fee too high or unfair because students don’t use labs

c) Environment poor: too hot in labs (esp 4-204), often overcrowded

d) Print cards a pain, and a plea for free printing

e) Some consultants inattentive, unhelpful, or unknowledgeable

f) Students expect consultants to be TAs – a common complaint, arising from a misunderstanding about the role of consultants. The distinction between consultants and TAs should be stressed more.

g) Projects in big classes often due at the same time. Is there any way to deal with this?

h) Many students access lab remotely, and more would do so if the connection were faster.

i) Lind 24 – not accessible enough, being off limits for general use three days a week.

j) Newest software (including Windows 2000) makes machines slower

k) Mice/keyboards often need fixing

Mein suggest tackling some of the issues raised by these comments by creating a web site where students could let management and ITICC know of problems as they arise.

Hudleston said that he would make a summary of the comments available on the web. He invited ITICC members to read them and be prepared to discuss the matter again at a future meeting. He also said he would ask the ITIC Tech Committee to review the comments and consider ways possible responses, and then bring any recommendations they might have to ITICC. The basic idea is to make use of this feedback to improve our service to students.

2) Plans for Spring Semester

Hudleston noted that the schedule for this spring involved preparing proposals for general lab improvements and lab management for next year, and possibly making some additions to the improvements made this year. He said he hoped to have the proposals done and ready to discuss and vote on by the April 12 meeting.

He also charged a subcommittee with the task of reviewing the funding procedures followed by ITICC in making allocations to support "Lower Division" computing. The procedures in place for this were established utilizing a triennial funding period. We are in the third year of the first such period, and Hudleston thought it appropriate to review how things have gone before we start on the next period. John Baxter agreed to chair this subcommittee. Hudleston said he would like the recommendations of the committee by the next ITICC meeting.

2) Other Business

None.