Right.....
You can't expect people to put it on their own kit. You'd need consistent format and kit across all reviewers, who would have to supply it themselves. We don't get paid for this (reveiwing grants), why would we do it if we have to shell out for stuff?

Confidentiallity issues prevent a website from being used for some of these things. All the reviews I do for RCUK are done through an online system called JeS which does exactly as you describe. However, things like Wellcome Trust funding is done differently. You need to be able to sit at panel, talking to other reviewers and applicants at interview, with all the documents and all your private notes (which you do not share with others) to hand. I fail to see how the cost of posting an iPad twice is somehow an inefficient way of doing this?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 10:50, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

Seriously, why not?
You've got the copy online as your master. Consistent format is easy enough, Word 2003 .doc format. Every piece of kit going can open it and save to it. I fail to see why you all need identical gear if the format is identical. Presumably there's a reason?

If you're going to a bloody review board, to sit in front of them and talk to them, please explain to me why an online original and a downloaded, amended, private copy of the document is a worse solution than the current? Because I'm baffled. Quite apart from the cost of having one of these things get lost in the post, if it does get lost, all that confidential data is in the public domain.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 10:56, Reply)

All the confidential data is in the public domain
the second you let anyone download it. Which your scheme requires.

I reckon there's a fuck sight fewer iPods lost by couriers in this scheme then you would have documents left on trains if you let people handle it themselves.

and you want a format you can make notes on, not edit. So word is useless. Plus, figures and pictures will move and re-format, all that shit.

And that doesn't change the fact that reveiwers would still need to provide some piece of kit to bring to panel.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:01, Reply)

Well no, if you've got identical format requirement
you don't need identical kit, meaning people can bring it in on laptops or USB sticks if there's a PC available on site.

I suspect half of all this is "this is the way it's done, therefore it's the only way to do it". You can make comments/notes on pdf documents without editing the original text.

OK, you have a point with the security, but you all seem happy to throw iPads through the post, so it doesn't seem as though that's exactly a high priority.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:04, Reply)

you cannot expect people to provide their own kit of any sort
if they are not being paid to do a job. So, let's say you provide PCs at the panel - fair enough. 15 PCs still cost as much as 15 iPads. There's no saving there. You have a much higher risk of loss of confidentiallity though, because you'd be giving people access to files in a format they can print, so they might do that. And then leave them on trains, in hotels, etc. Or else drop their memory stick. You're a lot less likely to lose an iPad than that.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:09, Reply)

Bullshit. If you're stupid enough to lose a document you're stupd enough to lose an ipad
That is a complete non argument.

If the data is on the ipad it can be taken off the ipad. so the confidentiality argument is bullshit too.

If confidentiality is that important are you all forced to sign non disclosure agreements, or similar? If not then that's just further evidence that it's a bullshit argument, if you are, then it makes no difference how you are sent the information. You can be issued with individual version of an encrypted pdf so if it got leaked it would have your name on it.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:12, Reply)

So you provide a secure website, or a Citrix solution with keyfob authentication.
You lose a Citrix keyfob in the post and you've lost nothing as they're assigned to passworded user accounts and even then you've got no idea which site it belongs to. Plus they cost pennies in comparison to iPads.

People log in. Access document from intranet. Make notes via pdf comments. Save to file. Journey to review panel, access via PC or laptop or even these iPads which you no longer need to post. User specific drives to save on, meaning confidentiality between reviewers.

Job done.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:13, Reply)

I think you're spot on with the "This is the way it is done and there is no better way because we have always done it this way and we would have thought of a better way if there was one" attitude.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:14, Reply)

I see it a lot.
People just don't like change, even if it's demonstrably better and cheaper.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:17, Reply)

They started doing it a year ago, so it's hardly that.
And I've seen nothing in Kroney's argument that is cheaper. You could instigate a system like he suggested which would be more secure, but it's certainly not cheaper. And as I said most academics would refuse to use it.

I think I'm spot on that you're bored and trying to provoke a meaningless arguement for the fun of it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:21, Reply)

It's not trying to provoke an argument
it's pointing out that couriering ipods back and forth is a stupidly inefficent system given the technology we have available at the moment. You keep defending it as the only way it could work given your criteria, but Kroney has already come up with a better solution that doesn't involve driving computers back and forth across the country.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:23, Reply)

I never said it was the only way it could work
I said it was the best for the scenario. Kroney's system is technically fine (except I still fail to see how two computers, one at each end, plus addional software, is in any way cheaper than one iPad or tablet), but fucking useless becuase a fair proportion of academics would refuse to use it. And no, that's not a problem with the academics. You need a system that works for all the aspects of the problem. Simply ignoring one aspect on the grounds you think that it's stupid is failing to provide a proper solution.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:30, Reply)

and how is that in any way cheaper (which was your origianl point)
than couriering 15 iPads once a year?

Also, people then can't work while they are travelling to and from the panel with your model.

And, you're dealing with academics here. Tell them you're sending them a Citrix fob through the post that'll generate a random code enabling them to log onto a secure site etc etc etc and they'll tell you to fuck off, they aren't doing it unless you send paper versions. Tell them you're sending them a magic screen they can touch to make notes on and they'll probably grumble but agree.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:18, Reply)

Because iPads cost 400 pounds each and need to be couriered for 20 quid each way.
For the cost of one iPad you can buy 30 Citrix tokens at a support cost of a few grand for the initial install and ongoing support. Plus you can send them first class in envelopes.

As for academics yes, they're change fearing morons. My point is that couriering iPads is a stupid solution, not that academics won't resist a different one.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:20, Reply)

PCs cost at least 400 pounds each and you need one at each end for your solution.
Plus a fuck sight more technical support than you need to use an iPad

It's not a stupid solution. It's a perfectly sensible solution for the overall situation. You've just identified that certain parts of the situation are stupid and should be changed, but failing to see that the solution has to handle all aspects of the situation, rather than the parts that suit you.

You've identified a problem with some academics (change-fearing - morons it a bit fucking harsh, coming from a IT jockey, no?) and my point above is exactly the problem with IT. Refusal to accept that a good solution has to work for the all users and that you don't get to bend users to do what you want.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:26, Reply)

everyone has fucked offf to the awsum new thrad btw

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:30, Reply)

I'm staying here until the cheese-eating surrender monkey says sorry.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:31, Reply)

All you've done in your last two posts is say
"OK, you're right in that it's technically better, but academics will refuse to use it because they're too change-resistant."

Which means that it's the users that are stupid, forcing you to use a stupid system. Which is fine, but that doesn't mean my solution is not better.

Simply saying that the users will refuse to use a better solution doesn't mean that your solution isn't less stupid or more sensible. It's fully retarded and you'll know that if you've got any sense at all.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:35, Reply)

It's not retarded.
it's as cheap as your solution, simpler, and for the users concerned, higher security. For people more IT literate, your solution is great. But it's not about change-resistance. Why should they change to use something they will never use again for a job they are doing as volunteers? It's like making it a condition of volunteering for the Samaritans that you have to be a fully trained psychotherapist.

"stupid" is not the same as "not interested in something not relevant" unless you want me to call you stupid because you can't design a process to scale up the manufacture of a therapuetic drug?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:44, Reply)

But it's NOT simpler and more secure. At all.
You don't need to be any more IT literate than you need to be to use HSBC's online banking system. It uses precisely the same basic technology. They can access it from their own home computers, so no cost for the volunteers. My solution may have a higher initial cost, but when you balance that up over years against courier fees and the inevitable lost iPads, I'd be willing to place my own money on it working out even at the very least.

And "stupid" is exactly the same as "not interested and not relevant" if they're shooting themselves in the foot by taking that attitude.

I am not calling the people stupid, I am calling the solution stupid. I am calling the people ignorant. If you wish to call me ignorant for not understanding the process to scale up the manufacture of a therapeutic drug, then you'd be exactly right to do so.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:54, Reply)

We're talking about 15 iPads
being shipped once every 18 months - 2 years. By the time your setup cost has been outweighed by courier costs I suspect both solutions will be obselete.

And your solution still offers no way of working on the documents while travelling, which is when we tend to do this stuff. What with us being volunteers, and having more than full time jobs already.

No-one is being shot in the foot by anything, since the only people I've come across that have a problem with this are you and Al.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:07, Reply)

OK, MB, your solution is best.
I'll look forward to reading about the loss of confidential data in the newspapers.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:09, Reply)

it's not my solution.
And I agree yours is more secure, but that's only one aspect of the situation.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:14, Reply)

Sorry, by "your" I meant "the existing".

( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:15, Reply)

It's OK.
I still love you.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:18, Reply)

What? How is it more confidential when you are sent a copy of the data on a computer?
You have just as much chance to disseminate that info as you do if you were to download it.

And you are just as likely to leave an ipod on the train as a document, honestly badger, you're really clutching at straws here.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:06, Reply)

You're more likely to leave an iPad on a train as a document? seriously? In what world?

And it's more secure becuase you'd have to download the pdf from the iPad, through choice, onto another device, and then disseminate it. You're not going to do it by accident. And the sender sets the security parameters, not the reciever. idiot-proofing.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:12, Reply)

I have left a whole bag on a train before.
If I had a document in it, then I would have lost it. If it had contained an ipad I would have lost that too.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:14, Reply)

And if John Q Public finds a bag on a train
is he more likely to walk off with a thick wedge of paper covered in SCIENCE, or an iPad?
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:18, Reply)

HAHA!
Yes, good point.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:23, Reply)

Good job you don't review grants then, innit?

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:18, Reply)

Format is surely not an issue, since that is being provided by the person who submits the grant application
And having access to Microsoft office is hardly an unreasonable expectation.

And with current technology using a website to share data can't possibly cause confidentiality issues, certainly no more than physically sending you a paper document or a file rather than sending a whole ipad.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 10:56, Reply)

I've covered some of that stuff above
but on your last point, how do you access the website when you're sat at panel?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:02, Reply)