• Syncing Notes, Tasks, and mail.
• Folders included in Mail interface.
• Free/busy support in iCal.
• Room booking support in iCal.
• Searching the GAL from Address Book.
• Includes contact groups.

There has always been Microsoft Entourage, but only this year did they beta Entourage connecting with Exchange 2007 web services which is the recommended method over MAPI. Most likely Apple will beat Microsoft in building the first client that connects solely through Exchange web services (which is why 2003 won’t be supported in Snow Leopard). On top of that the new iPhone 3GS will also support data encryption which is apparently an enterprise request.

When you add on the fact that both Outlook Live (the successor to Outlook Web Access) and SharePoint 2010 will support browsers other than Internet Explorer you now have (almost)  complete platform independence with your line of business applications. For everything else you can use Boot Camp free in the Mac OS or use VMWare Fusion or Parallels. It is exciting to see great technologies such as Exchange, SharePoint, and Apple OS work seamlessly together.

Political Barriers

Politics are often the first road block encountered when bringing a tool like SharePoint into the enterprise. Someone becomes sold on the platform usually in IT but sold to executives shortly afterward, and then the backlash begins. The first to bring argument against the technology are those who monitor and/or administer legacy systems. The BroadVision/Notes/etc team are not keen on having “their” application moved into a new platform and potentially turned off. SharePoint becomes the hardest to sell to these individuals. Instead of jumping on the new technology train they fear the loss of their job and will fight it to the end.

Cultural Barriers

Usually an enterprise class technology will make it pass the political barriers, because some executive (should have) been sold on it and pushes it through. The next group of people who become change averse are the end user or information worker as Microsoft calls them. These are the people that are being told that the file share is not the way to store and collaborate anymore. Often times frustration ensues, and many people don’t care to see how much better SharePoint can potentially do their processes and fight it.

This is a stage where “quick wins” are important. During this phase the SharePoint implementation team take an existing process that was cumbersome and error prone and do something like automate it with workflow. They could also make the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance team by showing auditing. Here you try and bite off a little bit, show improvement, and these people who benefit become evangelists for the product. The most effective sales person inside of a company is another co-worker.

Technological Barriers

The technology itself can become a barrier if it is not planned wisely. Let’s say you being to roll out the technology, and it’s painfully slow because you have SQL issues. The resulting effect could turn many potential users into quick haters. They then respond that “it’s too slow to use” and it becomes a hard stigma to overcome. It is important that the technological implementation is thoroughly assessed and implemented before training and implementation begins, because when the implementation starts it’s very important to set a precedent of reliability.

There is another technological barrier that is actually more cultural but very related. There will be people who instantly grab onto the technology and want it to do everything for them. These projects often can creep into an implementation and push a project off its timeline and sideline its overall implementation and adoption. It’s very important to have a project plan that is detailed in scope and people involved that want to see it saw through. Getting other ideas to use SharePoint is great, but not when it slows down an entire project.

“To ensure the best possible experience across multiple browsers we’re focusing our SharePoint 2010 engineering efforts on targeting standards based browsers (XHTML 1.0 compliant) including Internet Explorer 7, Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3.x. running on Windows Operating Systems.  In addition we’re planning on an increased level of compatibility with Firefox 3.x and Safari 3.x on non-Windows Operating Systems.  Due to this focus Internet Explorer 6 will not be a supported browser for SharePoint Server 2010.”

Amazing! Even IE6 is seen as a dead technology by Microsoft’s standards. Hopefully with news like this and Windows 7 pre-release excitement the browser might finally be relegated to the hall of technological mistakes. They also announced the WCM features in the next version will allow much greater control over the markup which may finally make SharePoint a real candidate for WCM for public-facing sites!

The announcement does also focus that the technological requirements will be all 64 bit and based on Windows 2008 as the host platform.

Presentation Resources

• ASP.NET CSS Friendly Adapters (Examples)
• xhtmlConformance Setting
• W3C Markup Validation Service
• Presentation Slides

If you don’t have Quicktime you can view the presentation on Vimeo in Flash, and my slides are available on SlideShare.

Edit Dialog

A client asked me to create a roll-up of some document libraries, and I decided to exercise the data form web part. It worked fine until I was asked why he got an open/save dialog and not the standard SharePoint read-only/edit dialog from document libraries as to the right.

After some help from some Twitter folk (@zaijian and @gvaro) it was made evident that there is some JavaScript that surrounds the anchors in the document library.  After comparing AllItems.aspx to my custom page I saw the JavaScript not included. I then added the JavaScript references around my XSL, and sure enough I got the dialog!

I tried to go one step farther and the whole context menu, but I was only able to get portions of us such as the gold hover bar. I know there were some hidden divs the JavaScript used, but alas I had other work to move onto. If anyone has experience with adding the whole context menu I’d be glad to add it here for others.

<a onclick="return DispEx(this,event,'TRUE','FALSE','TRUE','SharePoint.OpenDocuments.3','0','SharePoint.OpenDocuments','','','','110','0','0','0x7fffffffffffffff')" href="{@FileRef}" onfocus="OnLink(this)"><xsl:value-of select="@FileLeafRef" /></a>

This isn’t entirely the fault of the end users mind you. Often they are simply thrown SharePoint without a thorough understanding of how to leverage it effectively. The end user simply starts uploading and managing documents they way they’ve known on the file share and/or their local hard drives. The solution to the problem is found in proper and complete training.

Let’s take a look at the major reasons to avoid folders in document libraries.

Improved Findability

If you’ve ever tried to traverse someone else’s folder structure looking for a document you know what a terrible experience it is. We often end up frustrated and still without what we set out to find. Often folder titles take on something meaningful to the original user, but even when using a standard template to folders it still becomes difficult to find documents.

Using a single Documents library that comes out of a new SharePoint site does little to explain the information contained therein. Users then look at this single document folder as the root to an endless array of folders. The better approach would be to separate out your documents into multiple document libraries with titles more indicative of their contents. It also provides a better solution for your quick launch navigation in finding the information.

Content Type Effectiveness

Content Types are the backbone of categorizing and rolling up data in SharePoint. Content Types are limited to applying only to an entire document library so if you wanted to limit a content type to appear or not appear on a folder level isn’t easy nor is in intended to do so. Content Types are made for the document library and should be a representation of the data within the library. Remember that a folder is also a SharePoint content type, and putting documents within folders limits their ability to be surface through methods such as the Content Query Web Part (as you wouldn’t query all documents inside of the folder Content Type).

The Reasons for Views

Views in SharePoint provide the alternative to viewing data within a library without the use of folders. They are based largely on metadata set on the documents from (usually) the Content Types. When adding folders it renders views in SharePoint ineffective. Views provide powerful ways to view data and switch them quickly and easily. I wish more and more I had views and metadata instead of folders in my local computer.

Security

Another big reason to not use folders is the way SharePoint handles security. You’ll notice that security is done on the list level. You can set permissions on a folder which seems like a good solution, but it’s only temporary. As your sites grow it turns into an administrative nightmare to manage all your disparate security settings. The best way is to use the groups for security on the list which inherit on up the site collection, and when you need to aberate you can do so in a cleaner fashion.

Conclusion

This is a small sampling of why folders aren’t the best method in SharePoint document libraries. While not exhaustive it provides a basis for using the powerful paradigm presented in SharePoint to collaborate and share documents inside of SharePoint.

They approach IT solutions without a preference towards one technological solution or another, or become that way when cornered. Often this type of “agnostic solution” references to disciplines such as taxonomy development, governance, etc.

“Agnostic” Technological Solutions

Some companies attempt to say they can do any kind of technological implementation that the client desires. This is a more dangerous than saying they are completely bound by a technological solution (i.e. I can only use technology x). It is very misleading to make a client think that they have a methodology that is supra-technological solution.

While it’s true that enterprise information architecture is a discipline that can be applied to different technologies it does take on a very different form based on the solution the client needs. For a consultant to go in for analysis pushing one technology and when the client desires another it’s irresponsible and misleading to inform them that they can go forward with the implementation. A failed project is only down the road. The paradigms of application with a field such as EIA varies much on the technology. How one does taxonomy design and implementation and SharePoint another product is very different and should not be taken lightly.

While this is a rant of mine it is something I feel a client should be made aware of a consultant that goes down such a dangerous road.

Taking the Plunge

For a while I was doing all my virtualization of MOSS inside Virtual PC which, to say the least, wasn’t the most enjoyable experience. I tried running it on my Sony Vaio with Vista (I did like the laptop), and it just didn’t work out well for me. The computer was slow and unresponsive. It didn’t make me feel as though I had truly recreated a production-like environment to do my SharePoint work in. Then I started seeing that all the big SharePoint consultants were using MacBook Pros with VMware Fusion or Parallels. I decided to take the plunge for a better experience.

After comparing Parallels and Fusion I decided to go with Fusion, and it was a good decision! With my MBP which has 4 GB RAM, 2.8 Ghz processor, and a 320 GB hard drive at 7200 RPM I run SharePoint faster than some dedicated Microsoft Server setups I’ve seen! I can get in and do all my analysis and minor development quickly and easily. It allows me to enjoy the best of OS X while still running my necessary applications for my SharePoint work.

VMware Fusion in Action

Here are some screenshots of SharePoint inside of VMware Fusion.  A recent VMware post outlines one user running Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 in Fusion, but here I am running the full blown version of MOSS Enterprise. You can also see screenshots of me running Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server Management Studio, PowerShell, and MOSS in IE. I could even run all of this in unity mode quickly and seamlessly.

MOSS in Fusion

Visual Studio 2008 in Fusion

SQL Server Studio in Fusion

I’m looking for a business analysis role with a SharePoint firm. I want to serve as the individual that meets with clients early on to understand their needs and requirements and craft a solution around that. I enjoyed telecommuting which is something I desire, but I realize that might not materialize.

If anyone has any leads please let me know. Here also is my current resume for your consideration.  Thank you.