", it was nothing to do with advertising or just about the client."

My point was thats its relative success did have to do with that. I
wasn't representing your point at all, I was making my own.

I'm not even sure there has been any published surveys of user
experience problems with googles wave client, I think everyone is just
guessing.
In either case, its all irrelevant now.

What isnt though is that in order to get multiple clients targeting
different use-case's (which I think should be a priority), you need
both federation and a good client/server protocol. Walkaround, nor
Apache Wave, really have this yet.
And,yes, AC is needed for maximum flexibility.

-Thomas

~~~~~~
Reviews of anything, by anyone;
www.rateoholic.co.uk
Please try out my new site and give feedback :)



On 27 October 2011 17:23, Paul Thomas <dt01pqt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You completely misrepresented what I said, it was nothing to do with 
> advertising or just about the client. It is also not just about criticism. To 
> a user the interface *is* the program, they won't criticise what they aren't 
> aware of. They may criticise it how they can understand, but the fact it it 
> was the apathy, and lack of interest that was more telling than the 
> criticism. This is part presentation and part functionality.
>
> Exactly, the protocol should do either, any general out of the box solution 
> should pick the expected behaviour, or at least make it simple to to 
> configure.
> AC has been on the back burner becuase it was assumed that it was least 
> concern, but the fact is the flexible AC is what is goign to make it useful, 
> and lack of flexible AC makes it less viable. The complexities of the AC 
> could be problem, that is why I suggested at the very least starting with the 
> common ways people are used to communicating.
>
> So much of AC is specific to use case. Not having this limits your audience 
> considerably.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com>
> To: wave-dev@incubator.apache.org; Paul Thomas <dt01pqt...@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011, 15:32
> Subject: Re: Walkaround -- Wave on App Engine
>
> * Wave wasn't promoted or advertised and most peoples experience off
> if consisted of one client while it was buggy. Almost all criticism is
> off the client, in fact.
>
> These conversations are old hat.
>
> I needed a federated, open, realtime updating system that allows
> selective posting of information to different groups and allowing
> different people to update the same post*. I still need that.
> WFP is still the only thing that does that, and while a few other OT
> based systems have emerged, nothing gives that functionality.
> My use-case is on hold till that happens.
>
> -Thomas
>
> *(it really doesnt matter a defaults to editable or not - that should
> be upto the client softwares interface. As long as the protocol
> allowed both).
>
>
> ~~~~~~
> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
>
>
>
> On 27 October 2011 16:07, Paul Thomas <dt01pqt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This sounds more up my street, I wasn't a huge fan of the Wave Model as is, 
>> I always saw the potential being beyond that.
>>
>>
>> There is a saying "not all good ideas are useful", that is to say the 
>> potential to be useful is not always met out in the wild. This is what 
>> happened with Google Wave.
>>
>>
>> Good friend of mine hit the nail on the head, when I was discussing the use 
>> of wave based technology in NGOs and Charities, which she a lot of 
>> experience in:
>>
>> "This is more of project by programmers for programmers"
>> "It suits those who know each other and  are already used to collaborating 
>> in this way, which is rarer than you think"
>> "When I invest time on something the last thing I want is people editing 
>> willy nilly".
>>
>> Yes it is really easy to think of countless think tank type scenarios where 
>> wave will be useful, but the proof in in the pudding. You and I may like the 
>> idea (and I really do trust me), but that doesn't mean it will work. It is 
>> not just about technology, and making it possible.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong I think it is still salvageable and the overall concept 
>> of federation and OT will have many unexpected uses. But a the same time, 
>> there needs to be some thought to towards use cases. Is very easy to fall 
>> into the trap  of thinking becuase it can be used for 'everything' there for 
>> it is useful for everything.
>>
>> That is why I think there should be a serious re-consideration of Access 
>> Control. One of the most important consideration in interface is the 
>> expected behaviour. I believe the default behaviour for blip is neither 
>> expected nor wanted en-masse. I think all participants editing blips should 
>> be still possible, but that isn't what is wanted most of the time. People 
>> need their space, even during collaboration.
>>
>>
>> You have to realise the Wikis and similar are a special cases. It is not 
>> something where you would loose you job over it, and if it was then you 
>> would be damn sure about how you use it. There is a difference between 
>> collaboration in everyday task, and this level of collaboration. There is 
>> some politics involved like it or not.
>>
>>
>> You can only speculate as to the fate of Google Wave. However certain thing 
>> are definitely true:
>>        * It wasn't targeted at anyone in particular, few associations were 
>> made
>>        * it wasn't distributed, a per use case, it was go to and try. 
>> Federation didn't happen when it mattered.
>>
>>        * Existing paradigms were not used to help people transition instead 
>> there was obscure cultural references. Email doesn't count becuase that 
>> analogy wasn't strictly accurate, it was confusing, and it wouldn't help 
>> anyway.
>>
>>        * It failed to take in to consideration that becuase there weren't 
>> many expected behaviours, people would struggle to make heads or tails of 
>> it.Apache Wave is a Techocracy, but I think they need more interface, and 
>> architecture consideration. When I mean interface I mean the entire needs of 
>> the users, not views.
>>
>> I think more flexible technology, like Walkaround based projects sound like, 
>> may overtake Apache Wave as is. The again I do like the out of the box, 
>> initiative. It is getting beyond that sort of proof of concept..
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Alex North <a...@alexn.id.au>
>> To: wave-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011, 13:14
>> Subject: Re: Walkaround -- Wave on App Engine
>>
>> Thanks so much guys. I'm glad you finally got it out there, and a little
>> regretful that I didn't do more to help you.
>>
>> 'grats on the launch.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Christian Ohler <oh...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Fellow wavers,
>>>
>>> rather than making waves accessible in Google Docs, which takes too
>>> long, we are releasing our code in a form that will hopefully be
>>> useful in the short term.  You can find it at
>>> https://code.google.com/p/walkaround/ .
>>>
>>> From the project description:
>>> Walkaround is a variant of Wave, based on the Apache Wave code base,
>>> that runs on App Engine.  Walkaround can import waves from
>>> wave.google.com to allow users to keep working with their data
>>> regardless of the future of wave.google.com.  (The import feature is
>>> still experimental.)
>>>
>>> Much of the walkaround code is not specific to Wave, but factored out
>>> as a separate, more general collaboration layer that manages shared
>>> live objects.  These objects can be modified by multiple clients at
>>> the same time, with changes made by any client immediately broadcast
>>> to all others.  The Wave application is built on top of this, but the
>>> live collaboration layer is flexible enough to support other
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> Walkaround supports live concurrent rich-text editing, in-line
>>> replies, user avatars, wave gadgets, attachments, and we are working
>>> on integrating App Engine's full text search service.  For now, it
>>> does not support Wave robots, federation, or private replies, but
>>> these features could be added.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Some of you have been asking about Wave on App Engine; perhaps this is
>>> what you are looking for.
>>>
>>> The Wave application in walkaround depends very heavily on the Apache
>>> Wave code base, but the general collaboration layer is useful
>>> independently, so we put it into a separate repository for now.
>>>
>>> Happy hacking,
>>> Christian.
>>>

Reply via email to