I happen to agree with the two replies above. However I think we are jumping right in to the details. We need to take a step back and figure out how we are going to accomplish the UI design. I am skeptical that we are going to be able to make much progress through forum posts.
I think that we probably will need to have a flexible UI solution with multiple views. We probably want an architecture where wave in the box can have many faces so that we can try many different concepts out and see what the users like. I don't think there is much chance that we will all agree on what the UI should be. Nor should we expect all users to like the same interface. So the question remains. What is the best way to start the UI design process and how do we facilitate an atmosphere and architecture that will foster the development of different concepts simultaneously? Michael On Nov 27, 8:07 am, x00 <[email protected]> wrote: > As an out of the box solution it needs an out of the box interface. So > I wouldn't go to town, that is up to to others. I would be good to get > some choice. > > I like the simplicity of the current interface. I don't like the > clutter of gwave. The cleaner and simpler the better. > > One of the best ideas hinted at in the mock ups was the hint of > inherent graphed wavelet relationships in the "folders". Something I > have believe is the future for wave management. two minds and all > that. It just goes to show the pure creativity setting aside typical > modus, you can come up with some great ideas. I think it would be more > fluid though, using a zui and "folder" would be looser super tags/ > queries. many to many/ any to any relationships. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
