Teknoids

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:47 AM, April Barton <barton@law.villanova.edu> wrote:
We are building a new law school building, and along with it, new smart lecterns for all of our classrooms.xx--snip--xx
  3.  Do any of you think we are making a dire mistake by considering
putting the touchpanel on the wall rather than built into the lectern?This does not go to the precise question you pose, but a bit of relevant wisdom in regarding to system components you discuss regardless of location. The wisdom is derived from the School of Hard Knocks, of which law schools are a mere a college. :-)
The University of Oregon School of Law moved to a new building a few years ago. But the old building contained a flaw that caused severe electrostatic problems when computers were later introduced to the building. When constructed, the building climate control system had a flawed major component that could not be replaced without significant building reconstruction. The result was that the climate control system spewed a net balance of positive and negatively charged ions severely skewed toward the positive side.
The resulting problem was so severe when combined with building carpeting that one could not touch a door knob in the building without receiving a fairly powerful electrostatic shock. This of course became more problematic years later when computing devices were added to the mix. The work-around required the presence of an electrical ground near every computer to avoid discharge of static electricity to computers.
There was also a psychological cost. Beyond the irritation of enduring electrical shocks to navigate the building, air with a net positive imbalance in ions has long been scientifically established as a cause of emotional stress. Students and faculty were all aware of that and frequent exit from the building to breathe fresh air was the major coping mechanism. Building windows could not be opened.
The building was designed and constructed before computers were an issue and before building codes addressed such issues (if they do even yet). There were scant grounds at best for the University to recover costs involved in reconstruction from the architect and construction contractors because of the statutes of limitations.
The electrostatic defect had been obvious from the building's first occupation, placing the University on inquiry notice of all foreseeable consequences on pain of forfeiture of relevant causes of action such as the implied warranty of fitness for the intended purpose. The University chose not to pursue legal remedies within the statutory limitations period. So the climate control system stayed as it was after computers began creeping their way into the building.
There were University construction projects deemed more important to the budget, such as the construction of a football stadium that rivals those of the National Football League. Law faculty and embryo lawyers lacked the political clout to prize loose the funds necessary to repair the positive ion defect.
However, my former law partner's wife (recently ex-wife) is the law school's dean of students. She was assigned to oversee design and construction of the new building after increased enrollment justified it. I can assure you that she did not neglect such factors in the new building.
My law school education was in the old building and I frequently used the law library in the same building during my post-graduation legal practice. I was retired by the time the new building opened. I, my former partner, and his ex-wife all attended law school there and number among the old building's survivors. :-) The old building is now used by a different university college and I suspect its climate control system is still inflicting similar injury.
So my suggestion is to pay careful attention to the climate control system during building design and construction. Those are not tasks that should be left entirely to the discretion of folks with no IT responsibilities. I recommend similar attention to the type of carpeting installed, if any, and to the electrical grounding of relevant potential static discharge points. Careful review of design specs by an expert in static electricity prevention would be desirable. I can testify that door knobs alone are an inadequate solution. 
Otherwise, the choice between wall-mounting and podium positioning of components could prove more problematic than the factors you discuss, only a minor part of a more fundamental and intractable problem. Best regards,
Marbux