Hi,
thanks again for the very productive and inspirational meeting today. I am
positive that we have something great in the pipeline here!
Attached you'll find the raw IRC log (minus system noise). I'll write a
summary in the Wiki as soon as I find the time (if in the meantime someone
else want's to step up to do it though, I won't be in your way ;) ).
Cheers,
Thomas
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:12:28] <colomar> --- Meeting
"Task-centered system: Concrete plans / task assignment" starts ---
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:12:51] Quit mbolo has left this server
(Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:13:28] Nick miketesta is now known as mbolo.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:13:41] <colomar> Okay. Anyone here who
has not yet read the log or meeting minutes on the Wiki for the last meeting
and should be given an introduction on its outcomes?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:14:11] * Shaan7 has read
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:15:09] <notmart> ok, so, very very brief
recap then start
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:15:18] <colomar> Okay
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:15:29] <notmart> conclusion last time
was still quite abstract if i remember correctly
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:11] <colomar> In essence: What we
want is a system which supports a combination of optimized UIs for different
applications including document templates and other data to ideally support
specific tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:26] <colomar> For that we need:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar> A set of commonly used
tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar> Tool building blocks,
as many and as atomic as possible
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar> A UI to connect the
blocks to form a task workflow
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar> A way to share / get
them
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar> A tool to easily create
new UIs from templates
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar> A way to start a task
with given parameters
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:17:09] <colomar> What we need very soon
is at least one way to start a task
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:17:47] <Shaan7> maybe the dialog which pops up
after you click the "+" button has a section called "Create"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:17:50] <colomar> The idea was to define
an example task and create a tool to support that task
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:18:25] <colomar> Shaan7: That is
something I had in mind as well. It only works for tasks which involve creating
resources, though
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:18:31] <colomar> But I think we should
have that
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:04] <colomar> Okay so I think at
first we should define what we want to have when, so that we cvan prioritize
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:05] <notmart> i was more thinking of
something that looks similar to the addons store
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:48] <Shaan7> well I'd envision something
functionally providing atleast an equivalent to the "Create New" context menu
in Dolphin
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:49] <colomar> notmart: We could have
both. I think a button to start a creation task in the Add Items dialog makes
sense as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:58] <kallecarl> discussed
task-centricity rather than application
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:19] <Shaan7> yep so no PA application should
have a dedicated UI to create new stuff
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:28] <notmart> but, you could try to
describe an user scenario, maybe it makes ring some beels about how an
implementation could be
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:54] <colomar> Okay, one example we
came up with during the last meeting was the following:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:59] <Shaan7> email?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:09] <kallecarl> +1 - have to start with
use case
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:19] <colomar> A user is in a meeting.
Either she has already created an Activity for that or just an event in her
Calendar
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:21] <notmart> one thing i am a bit
hesitant about the add resources ui, is that the shell is quite huge already
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:35] <notmart> i don't know if i want
to add any more complexity anywhere near it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:57] <colomar> Now she wants to take
notes during the meeting and save those as an ODT file
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:58] Quit fabian has left this server
(Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:10] <kallecarl> err save as a file
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:14] <kallecarl> maybe
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:23] <Shaan7> save as a document, rather ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:58] <colomar> Shaan7: Of course from
her point of view, it's just "A text document". She doesn't care about ODT of
course ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:23:00] <kallecarl> anyway...save notes for
some purpose
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:23:06] <colomar> Yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:24:02] <kallecarl> colomar: what then?
keep an archive, distribute notes, refresh her memory later?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:24:59] <colomar> In that case, there
should be a note-taking task which starts Words Active with a very minimalistic
UI and the template she typically uses for note-taking with the date and
meeting title pre-filled from the event
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:25:29] <Shaan7> hmm alongwith tasks, the
applications should be able to take contextual info as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:26:05] <colomar> When she has finished
the document, it should be both attached to the event and Activity and she
should have the option to send it to the other meeting participants
automatically
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:26:36] <kallecarl> Shaan7: in other words,
person is in a meeting and wants to write. task centered capabilities takes
care of the details without person needing to specify:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:26:53] <kallecarl> application, storage
location, later access requirements
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:27:30] <Shaan7> hmm and "later access
requirements" is achieved by attaching it to the current activity?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:27:52] <kallecarl> don't know "how" yet,
just trying to get the user scenario
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:01] <colomar> Yes. And it should be
associated with the event in Nepomuk
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:25] <kallecarl> gets complicated...what
about if person wants to write a topical email?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:31] <colomar> The whole workflow
should be done without the user ever having to manually start an application
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:34] <kallecarl> still writing, but also
connecting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:50] <kallecarl> actually writing +
sharing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:59] <kallecarl> +connecting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:29:07] <colomar> That's what SLC is for
:)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:29:11] <kallecarl> yeah
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:30:43] <Shaan7> hmm
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:05] <colomar> So we need something
that starts the applications and provides additional information
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:38] <Shaan7> and that something should be
easy to access, maybe alongside the SLC icons
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:38] <aseigo> wrinkle: if the person starts a
document (say, a spreadsheet) and we want associated with the activity ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:48] <colomar> And the applications
need to be ready to use that info to adapt accordingly
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:50] <aseigo> ... we need an entry on disk,
or at least in nepomuk, to make that association
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:55] <kallecarl> so what's needed is a
good definition of this example user scenario, and then exploration of how to
implement given current or doable capabilities
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:32:35] <aseigo> if we make that entry and then
launch the application .. and then the user changes their mind and decides not
to save anything, we end up with an empty file and an empty (no value)
association with the activity
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:32:37] <notmart> have some concerns on
the idea (and also like it, it other parts)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:32:49] <aseigo> if we don't create the item
right away, then we rely on the application to do this
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:12] <Shaan7> let the app do it, i'd say
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:17] <notmart> i think the danger here
is falling in the temptation of building some sort of "omnicomprensive" thing
that lets you do all
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:17] <aseigo> this is not a big problem, but
i think it may say that we need some support in applications to really make
this seamless.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:30] <kallecarl> aseigo: ys
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:31] <kallecarl> yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:33] <notmart> just as a general thing
of the usual advice of "keep it simple" ;0
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:52] <kallecarl> writing document has
different characteristics from spreadsheet document
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:03] <kallecarl> but those can be
distinguished
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:12] <aseigo> we can provide a class / QML
component that encapsulates all that quite nicely for the application .. but
then we need a standardized way of launching an application in a way that
triggers that
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:17] <kallecarl> still something is
needed at the app level
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:25] Quit Sho_ has left this server
(Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:31] <notmart> as implementation, for
tasks that are creation of a document, probably it will have to be : user says
create -> asks the name -> saves on disk -> adds in nepomuk -> associates with
activity
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:32] <colomar> notmart: Yes. I prefer
to paint some unicorns on the wall first and then do the reality-check, though,
instead of limiting ourselves form the start
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:50] <aseigo> put another way: once the
person has launched something, we also need the application to help us out to
do the connecting bit
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:57] <Shaan7> notmart: or, when possible,
tries to guess the name from context
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:09] <notmart> created either with
some command to the application (parameters or commandline tool) or copied from
a template file already existing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:29] <aseigo> so when we design out the
implementation, let's keep that in mind...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:40] <notmart> Shaan7: that too, even
toughnot sure how much context we can have besides activity name
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:41] <aseigo> colomar: did you have any ideas
of at which point the person gives their new "thing" a name?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:13] <rubentje1991> context: location from
gps?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:15] <colomar> aseigo: I agree with
Shaan7 that we should use context to suggest a name
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:16] <Shaan7> notmart: yea but atleast that
(plus other stuff like date/time) can serve as a default and the user can
choose to change it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:34] <notmart> yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:39] <Shaan7> detecting more context can be
more complex, but lets keep that as a possibility
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:40] <kallecarl> aseigo: interesting
point, Wittgenstein would say that naming it brings it into existence
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:57] * aseigo would agree ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:06] <kallecarl> you and Ludwig...like
that
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:09] <colomar> That should happen at
the point where it's actually saved. In the meeting note case, something like
"Notes for event "<title>" on <date>" could be suggested
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:15] <aseigo> here's the rub with that .. (to
keep throwing sticks in our path ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:22] * Shaan7 has always wished Nepomuk to
give us a nice "no-filesystem" Save dialog. trueg used to blog about something
like a long time back
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:30] <aseigo> it's sometimes hard to come up
with a name before you start creating it. you may also want to change it later.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:44] <Shaan7> aseigo: thats easy no? just let
the Files app have a rename option
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:47] <aseigo> Shaan7: his attempts were well
meant and interesting, but overly complex imho
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:09] <Shaan7> hmm, I remember very faintly
though
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:11] <aseigo> Shaan7: that's ugly though
imo.. because then you need to find it, which implies leaving the creation app
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:27] <aseigo> what would be truly awesome for
myself personally is the ability to rename it whenever i wanted
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:33] <Shaan7> ah by later you mean not that
late when the app is closed
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:52] <aseigo> right, i might open a new text
document and call it "plasma active meeting"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:09] <aseigo> and then 20 minutes into it
realize i'd rather call it "new document workflow notes"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:18] <colomar> Do we really need to
create the file before the note-taking is done?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:20] <Shaan7> hmm but thats only possible if
the app provides that support, isnt it?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:29] <Shaan7> colomar: yes, what if the
device goes boom! :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:38] <kallecarl> colomar: need to know
that the file is going to be retained
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:38] <Shaan7> with the SSD being intact, that
is
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:40] Nick trueg is now known as
trueg_away.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:52] <aseigo> colomar: no; and in fact we
can't always .. so that's why the app must do the connecting for us as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:06] <colomar> I'd prefer to ask for a
name when the meeting is over and the user wants to complete the note-taking
task
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:09] <aseigo> Shaan7: yes .. perhaps ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:31] <colomar> Maybe create the file
with a dummy name and then rename it when the user has finished and knows the
name?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:36] <Shaan7> aseigo: what communication we
need from the app? we just need to tell it "hey, create a document of this type
with this title and show a nice UI to the user", right?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:46] <rubentje1991> first a temp-name,
later a definite one... or more focus on tags? or file properties?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:47] <aseigo> colomar: is that always at the
end?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:49] <notmart> well, the app can save
a temp file somewhere not seen by the user, that's another detail
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:15] <aseigo> Shaan7: not even that really
... just "here's my document i created, please connect it to whatever it needed
to be connected to"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:18] <colomar> We've imagined the
tasks as rather small, clearly-defined ones, not like "Writing a dissertation"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:20] <notmart> only thing, if we save
it later, we're again at the problem of having some sort of save-as dialog
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:22] <aseigo> in a way, it's a bit like an
automated SLC
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:28] <Shaan7> aseigo: by whatever you mean
some activity?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:33] <aseigo> Shaan7: yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:36] <aseigo> (as one example)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:41] <Shaan7> okay
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:42:26] <aseigo> colomar: or maybe drawing a
quick diagram in krita
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:42:28] <kallecarl> Shaan7: could be other
than some activity too...e.g. person's name or company name mentioned in the
writing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:02] <colomar> aseigo: Yes. We also
need a way to start a sub-task from within another one
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:04] <aseigo> so for me (from an
implementor's POV :) what i'd like to sort out is:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:09] Quit jpwhiting has left this server
(Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:17] <aseigo> a) what the "starting point" UI
looks like and can be responsible for
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:24] <aseigo> b) what the application needs
to help out with
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:50] <aseigo> c) what other cool things we'll
leave up to the user to handle (e.g. tagging it with things like the company
name or a contact via SLC)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:23] <aseigo> notmart: oh, which reminds me,
i've been thinking more about SLC and have some thoughts i wouldn't mind
discussing with someone soon
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:27] <aseigo> (not now though of course :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:31] <colomar> Yes. Though the
"starting UI" is more like a "meta UI", because it also needs to pick up after
one application's sub-task is done and the next one starts
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:50] <notmart> aseigo: even right
after the meeting is over is fine ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:50] <Shaan7> colomar: didnt understand that
one
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:51] Quit mbolo has left this server
(Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:05] <aseigo> colomar: that's interesting
indeed. hm.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:13] <notmart> sub-task, hmmmm
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:14] <aseigo> colomar: and will absolutely
require one of two things:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:14] <colomar> Shaan7: A task may
consist of several applications
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:17] Join AlmAck has joined this channel
([email protected]).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:27] <aseigo> a) application communication:
"Ok people, I'm done"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:48] <aseigo> b) process tacking (e.g. by
PID) and rely on "application quit == do the next step"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:51] <notmart> problem is when i think
about stuff like that, i can't help but think to a system/ui that becomes kinda
"bureaucratic"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:57] Join jpwhiting has joined this
channel ([email protected]).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:57] Quit jpwhiting has left this server
(Changing host).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:57] Join jpwhiting has joined this
channel (~jeremy@kde/developer/whiting).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:00] <notmart> and people don't like
that ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:20] <aseigo> notmart: if it's done well i
don't think it will come across like that
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:42] <colomar> Yes. It's something we
need to keep in mind to avoid it, but that's doable
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:44] <Shaan7> errm this sounds kinda
complicated :/
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:50] <notmart> yes, in the end there
should still be at least an "illusion" of total freedom
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:04] <kallecarl> in reality, there is a
limited (and I'll say small) number of things that person will be doing at THIS
location and at THIS time and in THESE contextual variables
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:18] <aseigo> what would be utterly sick
would be to go into the ui and by pressing options build "sentences" like:
"create a drawing" -> "and send it by email" -> "to grandma"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:27] <kallecarl> sick is good
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:51] <aseigo> "take notes" -> "saved to my
device"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:52] <colomar> notmart: Yes, and
customizeability as well. In Björn's vision, users can modify or create new
tasks themselves rather easily
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:00] <notmart> aseigo: more as in
navigating a menu or by writing sentences/commands?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:15] <aseigo> notmart: neither :) pick from a
set of options
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:17] <aseigo> SVO
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:51] <aseigo> subject verb object ... a
syntax of sorts ... where the first set of options is what to make
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:08] <colomar> And we can use all that
context stuff we have for the recommendations here
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:30] <aseigo> once selected you can select
the "do it now" (or "saved to my device") option at the top of the next set of
options ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:39] <colomar> This may be one way
where the recommendation engine can become really useful
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:45] <notmart> eh, in reality all that
exists here is most opened files not in activity yet... that's pretty much it ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:07] <Shaan7> uh oh, now thats sounding like
a grammar class :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:08] <aseigo> and if you pick "send by email"
then you get a list of contacts to pick from or a "choose recipients later" ..
and them voom
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:14] <colomar> hm, but what about the
named locations and all that stuff?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:29] <notmart> ah, yes, there are
named locations
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:38] <colomar> aseigo: Yes, and in the
meeting case the meeting participants are suggested
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:45] <notmart> and activities rated in
relation to the locations
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:52] <aseigo> nice thing about a simple
grammar like that is it can be contextual, modular and saved as "sentences" for
one press workflows if they are common
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:00] <aseigo> (either as presets, or because
the user wants to do the same thing again)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:28] <aseigo> "Make a diagram and post it on
google+"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:33] <aseigo> colomar: yes, we can pull from
contacts book + activity associations
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:49] <colomar> Yes.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:11] <aseigo> CSLC -> create, share, like,
connect :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:36] <Shaan7> ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:47] <kallecarl> and doesn't have to be
a sentence strictly speaking...could be touch gestures...circle the item, keep
finger down, circle item2, pull to connect location
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:51] <aseigo> colomar: do we have visual
mockups, btw?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:54] <colomar> The grammar could
indeed be useful for creating tasks. Our idea in the last meeting was that
users have a repository of common tasks (either created by them or by other
users)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:16] <colomar> aseigo: Not yet. That
would be the next step on the design side
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:18] <aseigo> kallecarl: yes, doesn't have to
typed at all. i'd hope not, in fact. touching options would build the sentence
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:26] <Shaan7> our problem is what exactly is
a task, implementation wise
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:30] Quit blaroche_ has left this server
(Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:41] Join rcg has joined this channel
(~rcg@2a02:908:e250:8401:99a6:6d9d:d1c7:5e80).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:43] <notmart> aseigo: still don't
understand how you would make the selection of the proper subject, then verb
etc look/work...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:08] <notmart> so it still "looks"
like a menu navigation
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:32] <colomar> notmart: Or more like a
chain of building blocks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:37] <aseigo> notmart: in the most trivial
type of implementation ... imagine a list of all the kinds of documents you can
create shown on the screen. maybe looking like the files app presentation.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:42] <aseigo> you pick "image"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:55:11] <aseigo> and now we have "Create an
image..." shown somewhere (perhaps picking "image" causes that item to animate
to where the sentence gets built?)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:55:33] * aseigo notes that he's making this
hard for translators, but will ignore that for a moment :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:06] <Shaan7> +1 for the something similar to
the files app
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:11] <aseigo> and now you get shown a set of
options, based on what's possible with an image on the device -> saved to
device; sent to owncloud; posted on google+; sent by email
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:13] <notmart> hm, so not too
different to my first idea about it, and i said "menu navigation" because i
pictured it looking not much like the files app, but more like the addons app
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:20] <aseigo> you select one or more and that
builds out the "sentence"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:24] <colomar> aseigo: Yes, that's
what I have in mind as well. The different blocks moving to a place where the
sentence is formed
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:29] <aseigo> notmart: that could also work
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:34] <aseigo> colomar: yea :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:08] <aseigo> each block would represent
another step in the processing pipeline ... now managing that pipeline, knowing
when each step ends .. that's where the implementation bits about application
cooperation comes in
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:22] <colomar> I think this and
notmart's idea with the columns could both be nice
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:29] <aseigo> because perhaps i start an
image to post to google+, but then change my mind and don't finish it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:41] <aseigo> colomar: yeah, either would
work out imho
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:45] <notmart> in that case, the list
of the selected items in the columns is the phrase
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:58] <aseigo> notmart: yes...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:58:20] <aseigo> the only hesitation i have with
columns like that is i may wish to do multiple things with it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:58:29] <rubentje1991> yep, is important
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:58:34] <notmart> yeah
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:05] <rubentje1991> but multiselect is an
implementation issue I think
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:08] <aseigo> save it to device, send it by
email .. i may want to make a picture, then arrange it in my local photoalbum
app, then post it online
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:50] <rubentje1991> that would be a good
starting workflow example
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:53] <rubentje1991> in my opinion
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:00] <aseigo> because it's hard? ;P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:10] <notmart> could well be
represented a list of do this then do that then this other..
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:14] <aseigo> but yeah, it's not completely
unrealistic
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:20] <aseigo> notmart: right ..
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:28] <notmart> just keep presenting
the list of available actions once one is selected
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:29] <aseigo> you have the "thing" you're
making, then what you want to do with it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:47] <notmart> eventually narrowing
them down if a precedent choice made some actions not possible
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:00] <colomar> notmart: yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:13] * aseigo notes that in an SVO
language, the "thing" gets named last
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:20] <colomar> And also offer
suggestions at each point based on context
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:35] <aseigo> (which may be a hint to "when
do we name it")
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:24] <aseigo> going bak into implementation
mode ... we always start with what kind of thing we want to create?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:40] <aseigo> if so .. then we can link
actions to file types as a first filter
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:40] <Shaan7> yep
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:43] <notmart> aseigo: then after one
chosen all the stuff to do what would happen? it would need to tell
applications what to do, maybe even more then one, maybe with a dependency
chain...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:49] <colomar> We don't necessarily
always create things
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:55] <aseigo> notmart: yes, that's the
implication
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:03:07] <aseigo> colomar: example?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:04:02] <kallecarl> could also be diagrams
... a la http://scratch.mit.edu/
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:04:32] <colomar> find me the ideal mode
of transportation to get from here to my meeting, then navigate me and play a
videeo to keep me entertained during the trip. And if I may be late, call Peter
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:05:22] <kallecarl> colomar: exactly the
kind of example I use when presenting PA
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:06:16] <colomar> That's totally unicorns
at this point, but it's Something I'd love to have. Just fire that up and
you're fine, nothing more to do
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:06:34] <notmart> so it would kindof
create a "script" that does stuff
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:06:52] <notmart> almost remembers me the
apple automator thing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:07:56] <colomar> notmart: As long as
they haven't patented the whole general idea yet, that sounds like a good thing
;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:08:34] <colomar> I guess the majority of
tasks will probably be about creating stuff, but the system should be flexible
to allow non-creating tasks as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:09:05] <kallecarl> colomar: not
necessarily...fetching stuff too
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:09:19] <colomar> absolutely
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:09:44] Join felix_ has joined this channel
([email protected]).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:03] <colomar> All Active applications
should have the hooks necessar to launch them with given parameters and geed
their status when they're finished
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:08] <colomar> +y
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:35] <colomar> geed = get (what was I
typing???)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:35] <Shaan7> what status will they give back?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:59] <Shaan7> lets say Words, what will it
return as a status when i'm done writing my text document?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:29] <aseigo> hopefully at the end of its
process it should be able to say "i'm finished, and the content can be found
<here>"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:42] <colomar> yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:52] <aseigo> btw, this is sounding more and
more and more like a scripted SLC
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:54] <Shaan7> we need that to, lets say
associate with the activity?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:00] <notmart> as reference, the thing
that made me remind, automator, is basically a ui for building flow charts for
actions to do, it generates a script that can lauch application and invoke ipc
similar to dbus to make the applications do what it's scripted
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:16] <aseigo> notmart: yeah, was thinking of
that too
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:18] <kallecarl> notmart: so they stole
ideas from MIT
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:29] <kallecarl> and patented them prolly
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:37] <notmart> kallecarl: their usual
workflow no? :p
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:43] <colomar> *gg*
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:13:57] <colomar> But we can do that
better than proprietary software ever can, because we all work together :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:15:44] <colomar> I think we have some
pretty good ideas about where we're going now. I guess we can start moving
backwards from that to define what needs to be done
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:17:19] <colomar> I assume that both UI
design and technical design need to be done next
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:17:46] <colomar> (okay, that wasn't
exactly moving backward from the goal but... whatever)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:18:50] <colomar> On the UI design side
what we need is
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:00] <colomar> a) A UI for initiating
tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <notmart> some example:
http://www.automator.us/leopard/index.html
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <aseigo> bwuahaha.i was just about to
paste http://www.macosxautomation.com/automator/index.html
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <aseigo> i don't think we need anything
nearly that complex
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <notmart> applications could
provided a minimal standardize dbus interface for task control
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <aseigo> but, yes ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <notmart> like a task status,
start (task name", param1, param2, ..)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <notmart> status, busy, ready
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <notmart> finished() signal
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo> notmart: which we need for slc
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo> implementation detail: it will
be possible for people to start more than one of these things at the same time
(or on different activities)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo> which means we need a way to
store the workflow steps while it is being done with an id that can be
addressed by the application(s) involved
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <notmart> aseigo: hmm, and that
interface where would be? on the application or on slc, ie all in the activity
manager daemon?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo> notmart: i think the daemon
should store the active workflows and orchestrate them
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] * notmart hopes we won't walk out of
the meeting sayng " i know what's needed: a new programming language!!" :p
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <Shaan7> lol
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <rubentje1991> :-D
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo> ok, designing out loud here:
the applications that support Workflows would get a workflow object that
connects to the daemon
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo> the application can set the
status of its job, and when it is complete, then the next bit of the workflow
starts
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo> all connecting, sharing, etc.
tasks could be routed through SLC itself so that we neither duplicate
functionality or have things you can do in workflows you can't in SLC, and vice
versa
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo> so SLC handles S, L, C tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] * Shaan7 has to go early, sadly, 1AM
here :/
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo> applications handle content
creation
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo> Shaan7: thanks for coming!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <notmart> Shaan7: gnight ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo> kamd handles keeping state and
stepping through the workflow
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <Shaan7> gnite guys :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo> notmart: does that sound
potentially sane?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:11] <colomar> b) A UI for creating
tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:21] <aseigo> if we insist that a workflow
can only ever have one application active in it at a time, this becomes very
simple
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:26] <notmart> aseigo: hmm, maybe
still not getting the details
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:36] <aseigo> colomar: haha.. sorry, we just
started running away on you to implementation ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:43] <notmart> how you tell slc "start
orchestrate this sequence of tasks"?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:20:06] <aseigo> notmart: think of the workflow
as a chain of applications or SLC actions to be done one after the other
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:20:29] <aseigo> notmart: the workflow creation
UI would assemble the workflow and send it to kamd
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:20:49] <aseigo> notmart: kamd would then use
that description as a state machine to step through .. "ok, launch this app to
do that"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:13] <colomar> Shaan7: gnite. Hope
you'll be able to join the next meeting as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:18] <aseigo> if an app supports workflows
natively, it could connect with kamd to let it know its progress; otherwise
kamd could watch PIDs
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:42] <colomar> aseigo: No problem. for
some reason Konversation stopped displying new messages and then spewed them
out all at once
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:48] <rubentje1991> would going backwards
in workflow be possible
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:59] <rubentje1991> ?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:06] <colomar> I was already thinking
everyone had suddenly fallen asleep or loist consciousness
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:09] <aseigo> rubentje1991: hopefully not in
the first version
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:11] <aseigo> colomar: lol
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:14] * aseigo faints
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:18] <rubentje1991> :-P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:36] Quit ksinny has left this server
(Remote host closed the connection).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:37] <aseigo> rubentje1991: that's a
significantly tricky thing to do because you need to keep versions of the data
at each point and know which steps are not time reversable
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:49] <rubentje1991> yep, i know it's not
easy
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:51] <aseigo> let's get "going forwards in
time" working at least :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:54] <rubentje1991> just keeping in mind:
user = errors
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:00] <rubentje1991> yes, for sure
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:08] <aseigo> being able to modify a workflow
in progress ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:13] <aseigo> or add to it ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:41] <colomar> yes. I agree with
aseigo: Being able to go backwards is the idea, but it's for later versions
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:00] <rubentje1991> nice
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:07] <rubentje1991> to know it's thought of
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:17] <aseigo> colomar: do you think it would
be useful to show what the current workflow is doing / will be doing?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:23] <rubentje1991> step for step - we'll
see what happen
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:42] <aseigo> e.g. be able to check somewhere
quickly to see that the workflow was "make an image, save to device, send to
facebook" and currently it is at "save to device"?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:51] <rubentje1991> hmm
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:00] <colomar> Yes, I think that would
be useful
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:02] <aseigo> (possibly even able to request
to add to it?)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:19] <colomar> We'd just need a good
place to show that. Maybe in the peek?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:20] <aseigo> if so .. do you think extending
SLC with another Workflow icon would make sense, shown only when "in" a workflow
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:34] <aseigo> then it would always be
available without having to do anything to applications
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:40] <colomar> ...or there, yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:42] <aseigo> peek is another place it could
be
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:52] <aseigo> ok, so somewhere show something
about "what the workflow you're in is"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:55] <rubentje1991> peek from bottom
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:55] <colomar> Yes, definitely
somewhere global
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:59] <aseigo> that will need some UI thoughts
then
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:26:23] * aseigo just a small wet dream ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:26:50] <aseigo> god.. i switch activities and
check the workflow button to remember what the hell it was i was doing again
before i got interupted by that meeting about workflows? ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:01] <rubentje1991> or multi touch gesture
from some side
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:23] <notmart> aseigo: wouldn't be
more a features for jobs/notifications ui?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:24] * aseigo will not have to remember
anything ever again!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:35] <aseigo> notmart: yes, it could also go
there
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:42] <kallecarl> where'd I put my tablet?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:47] <aseigo> kallecarl: shit.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:52] <rubentje1991> lost my
remember-function in my head
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:59] <aseigo> kallecarl: this is why the real
world needs ctrl-f ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:28:23] <rubentje1991> "plasma glasses"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:28:43] <colomar> kallecarl: Reminds me
of the "Brain annex" you mentioned in the last meeting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:28:53] <rubentje1991> instead of Google
glasses
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:01] <rubentje1991> much more interesting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:17] <kallecarl> not my idea ... As we
may think (pdf somewhere); Vannevar Bush 1945
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:24] * notmart notes that the dream would
become even wetter when one will be able to transfer workflows between devices
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:37] <aseigo> notmart: oh yeah
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:42] <kallecarl> could even do it with
touch
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:59] <aseigo> colomar: i'm really in love
with this idea now ... and so much to think about in terms of UI and
implementation details ... do you think you have enough to start on UI mockups?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:31:06] <kallecarl> we could start with one
example implementation...it still seems like (at some level) there is a limited
number of things that people do
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:31:14] <colomar> aseigo: Yes, I guess so.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:31:52] <kallecarl> those tasks plus the
ability to create or modify them should handle most of this
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:32:17] <colomar> notmart: Yes, in an
ideal world, you could seemlessly switch between devices
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:19] * kallecarl has to go...thanks colomar
for pulling this together. Would be nice to get some input from your uni work.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:46] <colomar> I guess this is
material for a "defensive publication". We surely don't want somebody else to
patent it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:48] <kallecarl> or your colleagues who
are working in this area
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:58] <notmart> colomar: +1
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:34:44] <colomar> kallecarl: Yes, I'm
starting to see a research project about this on the horizon... :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:37:37] <colomar> Okay. So now I will try
to get Björn, some colleagues and anyone else who wants to help and draw up
some mockups during the coming weeks. Can you do some more system design in the
meantime or do you need the mockups for that?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:39:11] <aseigo> activities, workflows,
share/like/connect ... this is feeling like a more and more "complete wall"
concept
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:39:37] <aseigo> colomar: no, we can start on
system design as many of the infrastructure needs are evident independent from
UI presentation
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:39:58] <colomar> great
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:06] * aseigo has to go now ... thanks for
keeping this rolling colomar! and thanks to everyone else who came!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:28] <colomar> Thank you as well!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:37] <notmart> ok, awesome
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:41] <colomar> Okay, so when should we
meet the next time?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:41:05] <notmart> aseigo: is this in line
with the other ideas about slc you mentioned? is still valid?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:41:13] <colomar> Sometime early next
month maybe?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:41:52] <notmart> maybe, probably the
discussion is to be brought for a while in the ml topugh
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:42:10] <notmart> colomar: could you do a
quick recap of what we said in a ml thread ?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:42:33] <notmart> on there you could also
post first rough mockups when you have
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:43:50] <colomar> notmart: Yes, I can
write a recap. Don't know when I'll find the time, though. I found that it
usually takes me a few hours to do these, so it may take a few days until I
find the time
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:44:20] <notmart> that's fine
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:44:59] <notmart> for now just a rough
log dump is ok, then if you can summarize few points in next days, no hurry is
fine
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:45:49] <colomar> Yes. I'll send the log
dump today
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:46:04] <colomar> Olay. So, meeting
officially closed
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:46:36] <colomar> Thanks to all of you
who joined, i found this to be very productive!
_______________________________________________
Active mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/active
