", 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. >>>