[Go-essp-tech] Transition to CMIP5 production status

Thu Feb 10 01:51:43 MST 2011

Hi All,

regarding the usability I think we are falling behind. It's normal to 
have some resistance from new users, as they have to "learn" yet-a-new 
system.

Still, I'm not 100% sure of all the functionality the Gateway offers, 
nor how to use it. I can only imagine what a new user might feel like.
I'll give a few examples to be sure I'm not standing on thin air:
1) Login: Nobody understands what OpenId is. Most people have already an 
OpenId, so they'll try a few and then give up. Some other just try to 
register at every Gateway. Until someone asked me about it, I wasn't 
aware that the questionnaire OpenID doe work wonderfully, as it's part 
of BADCs identity provider.
2) Federation-search: Most users might not be aware of the harvesting 
procedure. They'll login at the gateway that "supposedly" contains the 
data, and therefore loggin in to multiple ones (probably until they 
realize everything looks alike...)
3) Search: Now I speak for myself. I don't find the search useful at 
all... If I try to find a dataset, I have to make my way through the 
facets. Because putting the dataset name in the search invalidates it 
"Error: Search text contains invalid characters - please use only 
letters and numbers " No dots nor dashes! I can't even search for our 
model....
4) Version: the version of the dataset is not easy to see... I think 
that might bring confusion when a new version is published.

Well, I think we still need to polish a couple of things. Specially 
since there's no help at all.

And since we are at it. What's with the about page? We, as well as BADC, 
have the default one. Where states that the ESG is funded by the DOE and 
only a couple of Institutions and Partners are listed... neither MPI, 
DKRZ nor WDCC are mentioned there...

Just a couple of issues to light the fire.

Thanks,
Estani

Am 09.02.2011 20:23, schrieb Eric Nienhouse:
> Bryan, All,
>
> Agreed on the below.  Deployment and support plan(s) are crucial to the
> initial success of our federated system.
>
> I feel we've all spent a lot of good effort on development planning and
> integration system testing in anticipation of the CMIP5 production
> activity.
>
> We need to spend more focused effort on deployment, operations and end
> user support.  Working quickly to get a user support system in place is
> one critical piece IMO.  Bob started a thread on this recently with
> little feedback.  Let's continue to discuss this and work quickly toward
> an initial proposal.
>
> Further, a number of the problems raised involve *usability* of the
> federated system.  (A sincere thank you to Karl for detailing your
> recent experiences.)  User experience has highlighted difficulty with
> Wget using MyProxy certificates, confusion about OpenID and login and at
> least one technical issue related to SSL certificates.  Tiger teams are
> forming to work on these areas.
>
> I believe we'll need some true user observation and usability study to
> resolve this well.  In other words, we need to spend more effort on the
> usability of the federated work flows and the system overall.
>
> Note that a number of Data Nodes are configured (only) with token based
> file access.  This makes certain Node file access easier for some users
> (IMO), however, we're not achieving the benefit of re-usable Wget
> scripts in these cases.  Token based access is a possible fall-back
> option for the near term in my mind.
>
> A deployment schedule during this phase will greatly help as there may
> be rapid change in need of end-user evaluation.  In fact, there have
> already been a number of changes since Karl's work that address some of
> the Wget/MyProxy problems.
>
> We need to look carefully at what we as a federation can accomplish
> given the needs to develop, test, release and deploy multiple software
> components.  Routine upgrades will involve Gateway and Data Node
> deployments and a coordinated release schedule.  A one week cycle may
> not be do-able.  However, agreement/commitment to a deployment (upgrade)
> plan is critical.
>
> Let's continue to discuss and formalize a near term deployment plan.
>
> Apologies for long email - more "thoughts" and "observations" than plans
> - we're meeting to discuss this further at NCAR today.
>
> -Eric
>
> Bryan Lawrence wrote:
>> hi Folks
>>
>> I think there are two levels of problems being discussed.
>>
>> A: We need to "deploy", and have in place a mechanism to "upgrade", and
>>
>> B: We need "tiger teams" to nail problems.
>>
>> A number of instances of B are under way. Good.
>>
>> However, I'd like us also to have
>>
>> 1) a clear an unabiguous method for "users" to report problems, and
>> 2) a clear plan for when and how we upgrade during the next few weeks.
>>
>> I know Stephen has suggested using footprints for 1) (and I'm fine with
>> that, and recommend we do that ... now! ... even if we replace the
>> system for user support later - which we may need to, since it costs
>> real money to deploy), and
>>
>> We agree something like:  "we will do simultaneous upgrades every
>> wednesday during the next couple of months (allowing us to agree on
>> details on a tuesday)."  I don't mind if that's not the plan folks agree
>> on, but I want a plan ...
>>
>> All of this is of course independent of  "announcements".
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>> --
>> Bryan Lawrence
>> Director of Environmental Archival and Associated Research
>> (NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre and NCEO/NERC NEODC)
>> STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> Phone +44 1235 445012; Fax ... 5848;
>> Web: home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech

-- 
Estanislao Gonzalez

Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie (MPI-M)
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ) - German Climate Computing Centre
Room 108 - Bundesstrasse 45a, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany

Phone:   +49 (40) 46 00 94-126
E-Mail:  estanislao.gonzalez at zmaw.de