Absolutely. There will always be people who will not be comfortable
with the way we're doing sharing.
How much effort we're going to expend in the Beta timeframe to make
everyone comfortable with sharing is partially a target user issue
and partially a personal choice thing that is independent of the
whole target user exercise.
For some people, it won't matter what 'role' they play in their
organization. It doesn't matter if their organization is a small
group, a large enterprise or the government. They won't share without
user accounts.
Nevertheless, there are a handful of 'target user' considerations to
take into account.
+ If you really, really, really, really, really need to share your
calendar. (e.g. you're Mitch) Then you might put up with the security
risk in order to make your life easier/possible.
In the end however, I think we all recognize tickets are an interim
solution and that eventually we will need to offer something more
robust.
Mimi
On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Brian Moseley wrote:
thanks for the deeper explanation. i buy your argument now. see below
for a comment, though.
On 7/14/06, Mimi Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This misalignment of interests and goals is why:
+ Evite doesn't require user accounts to RSVP.
+ Flickr doesn't require user accounts to view pictures.
+ Many e-tailers (including Amazon) are now allowing users to make
purchases
without creating accounts.
+ It's one of the reasons why Microsoft created Passport.
the difference between our stuff and these examples is, i think, the
degree of privacy that is/could be required.
my personal calendar is a very private thing, and i only want a few
people at most to even have read access to it. i would be very upset
if a ticket-bearing url was to escape into the wild and would probably
immediately nuke all of my data from the server. i would most
definitely not use tickets to share my calendar, and i would require
that anybody i shared with have an account on the server and be forced
to identify themselves to the server with (minimally) username and
password.
now, maybe i'm not one of the target users, and maybe sharing my
personal calendar with select friends and family is not one of the
target use cases. if that's the case, then i'll shut up.
i do understand that for evite- or flickr-style collaborations,
requiring an account is probably not necessary. luckily cosmo does
support tickets, and i don't see anything in the original proposal
that would keep chandler from using them for these types of sharing.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
