Pictures definitely work for some applications. Re-reading the "generic" comment earlier, I think the implication was GWave tried to be a Jack-of-all-Trades. It could kind of do many, many things. But it wasn't a great document editor, or social network, or micro-blog, or wiki, or project management tool, etc.
Wikipedia describes GWave as: "*a web-based computing platform and communications protocol, designed to merge key features of media like e-mail, instant messaging, wikis, and social networking*." The underlying protocol has great advantages for all these applications. However, creating a single interface that fuses all these "features" and maintains its own conceptual integrity may not be feasible. On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Gamer_Z. <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally liked the idea of using someone's picture. It seems to > make sense, dragging someone's head to a wave to bring him or her to > the discussion. > > Also, I agree that the use of GWT is the one of the biggest problems > (at least for me). I am glad to create mockups in HTML+CSS, but I do > not understand GWT. > > On Nov 27, 6:24 pm, Kai Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > > A wiki is a great idea. Then we could tackle many disparate problems, > and > > start grouping similar ideas together into a coherent interface. > > > > I don't feel wave.google.com had a generic interface. It was strongly > > influenced by Gmail/Facebook, and threaded comments like Reddit. Profile > > pics, for instance, are used in at least four contexts: Contact list, > Wave > > Inbox, at the top of a wave (participants list), and within a wave. So > you > > can easily be looking at a screen in Gwave where you see the same pic 4 > > times. To me, that screams Facebook. > > > > One thing I would like to see is more designer/developer friendly tools > for > > creating and modifying the interface. Torben's Wala-compiler is headed > in > > the right direction. Java/GWT is an incredibly high barrier to entry for > UI > > designers. > > > > I'm interested in creating HTML/CSS/JS mockups of design ideas. Still > > working on Tensor, which is a study in tree structures and contextual > blips > > (eg, an issue tracker wavelet where blips are tasks). > > > > Ideally, WIAB should eventually ship with multiple skins/interfaces. > These > > should serve as starting points of different interface paradigms for > people > > looking to customize WIAB. > > > > Also, slightly too specific, how feasible would a Wiki-like two column > > revision history be to build? GWave's Playback was cool, but not very > > practical for reviewing groups of changes. > > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Michael MacFadden < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Again I agree completely. Maybe I should set up a wiki page where > > > people can most mock ups and ideas for us to discuss. As I said I > > > think the more diverse ideas we can look at, the better off we will > > > be. > > > > > Michael > > > > > On Nov 27, 2:23 pm, x00 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Figure out aims (already started), project initial user base, get UI > > > > people on board, don't be limited by gwt, look into methods of > hooking > > > > up interfaces, schematics, schematics, mockups, etc. > > > > > > *more detail* > > > > > > Wave is kind of user centric at the moment. I know it sounds > > > > contradictory making a user interface other than user centric. But it > > > > isn't about making it less user friendly, on the contrary, more bout > > > > striking the balance between task and the users (which obviously are > > > > an important part of getting the task done). I created a schematic > for > > > > an interface that was more task centric, and it was actually like a > > > > walk-through experience (wave agnostic). It is too specific for WAIB, > > > > but the general idea that social media for the sake of social media, > > > > whilst good for reaping personal information, is ultimately not > > > > uniquely useful to the users other than status reasons, whereas > things > > > > like wave are about getting things done and communicating ideas > > > > collaboratively. Obviously there are other synonyms for "task" but > you > > > > get the idea. I think architecture that reflects the aim to > > > > collaborate on something makes sense. > > > > > > I know I said this before, but I'll say it again. “Conversation” is > > > > just a default communication. It is one type of collaborative > > > > communication amongst many possibilities. Granted it will be a > popular > > > > one that would be used along side app doc and other things. However > > > > it would be good in the long term to build all models and their > > > > interfaces with api for that. > > > > > -- > > > 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- > 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- 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.
