I've been working with a small team at Weber State to give them a quick "leg up" on some of the "ins and outs" of the OSP tools so that they can move forward with an initial implementation of their own matrix and portfolio template. I asked Vicki Napper if I could quote her, because I think she really nails a problem that the OSP community has.

She said (in reference to the built-in ambiguity of the tool suite):

"Should the term open source mean ...without an opinion about use? I don't think so. Open source's power is that many people are thinking about common problems...but they need to document why they chose the solutions they did and why it works for them."

I think its telling that (given the popularity of ePortfolio's in education circles today) OSP doesn't have many adopters nor contributors. The charge ahead is largely lead by a few large institutions. I stopped for a second and told her my opinion:

"Its rather amazing that their isn't some "out of the box experience" isn't it? Not even a "basic portfolio" that lets you throw together a few pages. The community of schools that have been building it have been very cautious not to pigeon-hole the software into one or two uses. None of us like it, but are unsure what common portfolio experience "other" schools would find most useful. This would require a research (maybe even a marketing) budget to discover what "other people" want. Keep in mind that the schools throwing resources into OSP are ALREADY using it to support THEIR portfolio processes and any resources they have for OSP are spent on that activity...not on the kind of research that would likely benefit newcomers. Of course, they are open to new ideas, but often the effort required to participate in the discussion is a barrier to the input of new ideas."

I'm feeling empathy for Nathan Pearson as he tries to get his head around the basic functionality of OSP, its application and history. I think Nathan has the newcomer's perspective in mind in his UX effort.

I wonder what sort of research effort should go into this before Sakai 3.0? It would seem an ideal project for a UX group to take on as a purely exploratory piece....and not just from current users, but from potential users that are frequently turned away by the traditionally high barriers.