The University of Western Australia – Information Services Committee

Platform Neutrality Policy

The following represents the Policy on Platform Neutrality as adopted by the ISC on 3-Dec-03.

The issue at stake is the extent to which central IT systems, services and electronic resources should be accessible by a wide range of client platforms across the University.  It should be noted that “central” is used in the sense of any computer or network system which is intended for widespread use across the University (whether or not it is provided by Central Administration).

1.      Objectives:

The objective of formulating and gaining wide acceptance of a Platform Neutrality Policy is to provide the following guidance:

a.    To provide schools, faculties and end-users with an understanding of how free they are to choose whatever desktop platform they wish;

b.    To provide the central administration (and any other developers of general-access systems) with guidance on how much they have to do (how much resource or funds to spend) in order to provide full functionality on a range of platforms;

c.    To provide users with a way to decide if the advantages of a “different” platform outweigh the extra costs they will or may have to bear.

2.      Constraints:

a.    It is unlikely ever to be feasible to insist that the University adopt a Common Desktop Environment (as some universities have done, and others have tried but failed to do);

b.    The University will never be able fully to exploit the advantages of any particular platform, as they all have “extended” features that are only available to users with similar platforms (except for within relatively small homogeneous groups);

c.    Even where Web-based interfaces to applications are available, differences in browsers and versions of browsers across different platforms make compatibility uncertain;

d.    Users of non-native platforms (viz ones for which central application software packages were not specifically designed) generally choose them because they experience some benefit in doing so (eg increased personal productivity);  but it may be very difficult to insist that they therefore should bear the cost of accessing systems designed only for native platforms;

e.    The key issue should be the overall cost to the University, not which section of the University has to bear the cost of obtaining satisfactory access to central systems;

f.      One possible solution – to only employ software for central applicatiosn that runs on all or most platforms – is really not realistic:  it is likely to result in too restrictive a set of software (if, indeed, any can be found at all for a particular application), or in missing out on many of the benefits of advanced technology (since such software would be required to match the lowest common denominator);

g.    As technology continues to change, what may now be considered acceptable solutions turn out often only to be fleetingly so;  this issue therefore needs to be revisited at least annually.

3.      Policy:

a.    That the University continue to subscribe, in principle, to a policy of platform neutrality for central systems.

b.    That the types of platforms for which support will be attempted be limited to the most common operating systems in use within the University (to be updated by the ISC’s Technical Advisory Group at least annually, or as appropriate)[1].

c.    That the choice of central application solution packages not be unduly influenced by the need to provide full cross-platform functionality.

d.    That, wherever it is possible at not unreasonable cost, cross-platform Web-based client access be provided (cost to be met by central system provider).

e.    That the University accept that major computer systems within the central administration of the University, and those for which integration with these major systems is important, will make use primarily of Windows as the preferred client platform, and will be optimised for that platform.

f.      That the University recognise two different levels of access to central systems – for those users (relatively small in number) requiring full functionality – arrangements as in (h) below should be provided;  and for those (vast majority) requiring only a subset of features – cross-platform Web access be provided (recognising that some functionality may be lost with Web interfaces).

g.    That wherever problems exist accessing applications provided by central administration, or are believed to exist, ACS will liaise with the relevant technical support staff and make their best endeavours to resolve such difficulties, failing which they will propose alternative solutions (such as use of a Citrix terminal server or similar or acquisition of a “native” client).

h.    That the relatively few key users of affected applications who do not have the native client be provided (at central cost) with native-mode access via the Citrix server or similar, which will be provided by ACS to support all central systems;  alternatively, such users may acquire native clients (at their expense) to use for those applications;  the choice between these two modes of access to be made by the user.

i.      That ACS maintain, for each central administration application accessed across the University, a Web-based register of client platforms considered to provide full functionality together with an indication of what functionality is lost and what other problems are believed to exist with any of the set of client platforms identified in (b) above.

j.      That ACS maintain a Web-based register of Web browsers and versions that are considered to be suitable for Web-based access to central administration applications[2], which encompasses aspects such as the need for JavaScript, Applets, Plug-ins, etc;  this list will be kept under review by the IT Technical Advisory Group;  the aim is to support the top 90% of browsers in use within the University, with a minimum of 12 months’ notice where a significant change in requirements is expected

k.    That ACS maintain a Web-based register of document formats and versions (for word processing and spreadsheet) suitable for use with central administration systems with the aim of catering for 90% of relevant platforms in use within the University, and will endeavour to give 12 months’ notice of any significant changes.

l.      That MS-Word (or compatible formats, including RTF) and MS-Excel (as appropriate) be used as the primary formats for the exchange of documents under development.

m.  That HTML or PDF be the standard format for static documents to be made available on the Web (in the case of PDF documents, care must be taken to ensure they are accessible to the disabled).

n.    That questions of “reasonable cost” and any disputes arising from the application of this Policy be determined by reference to the Information Services Committee.