4 ms·

A kind of best-practice report on how to use Wave productively would be very interesting and motivating (at least for me). We still use Wave for collaborative

by ekidd 16y ago

A kind of best-practice report on how to use Wave productively would be very interesting and motivating (at least for me). We still use Wave for collaborative document editing at our startup, although we clearly need to migrate off ASAP. :-) Wave seems to work best as a small group collaboration tool. It's not so useful for communicating with strangers, or for real-time chatting (the key bindings and performance aren't well-suited to short, real-time messages). Wave is a great replacement for short-lived wiki pages. You know all those wiki pages that you work on intensely for a while, and which then hang around cluttering up your wiki? Wave is infinitely nicer for that kind of emphemeral, searchable documentation. And you don't have to teach non-techies how to use MediaWiki, which is always a plus in my book. Oh, and install a Wave notification plugin in your browser. I use "One Number" for Google Chrome, which supports Gmail, Wave, Google Voice and Google Reader.

sudont 16y ago
Very much so. I'm a bit of a client-fetishist, and so I'd rather see Wave be broken down into a protocol and server, allowing for client applications to access the wave, rather than deal with a web app, which still tend to lag behind a nice cocoa app. The nice thing about email and IM is that they're very KISS, message goes from client - server (sometimes) - other client. Wave was built with the Google mindset of server-server with web-only clients. Sure, there was the CLI app, but it was more of a proof-of-concept than Outlook or even Mail.app for IMAP. In terms of a project, Wave would greatly reduce the overhead of emailing in my project teams. We do web development, and there's a designer, PM, writer, AM, outsourced QA, and me, the developer. Right now there's this huge, hulking in-house business tracker meant to coordinate between the parties. Using a wave per site would be great, as we could all communicate on the same whiteboard. If you're still doing real-time collaborative, SubEthaEdit or ZoHo notes could fill the gap. Or, you could host the server yourself?
- lincolnq 16y ago
  Very much so. I'm a bit of a client-fetishist, and so I'd rather see Wave be broken down into a protocol and server, allowing for client applications to access the wave, rather than deal with a web app, which still tend to lag behind a nice cocoa app. I think this is already the case. Didn't Google demo a command-line Wave app?

by ekidd 16y ago

sudont 16y ago

Very much so. I'm a bit of a client-fetishist, and so I'd rather see Wave be broken down into a protocol and server, allowing for client applications to access the wave, rather than deal with a web app, which still tend to lag behind a nice cocoa app. The nice thing about email and IM is that they're very KISS, message goes from client - server (sometimes) - other client. Wave was built with the Google mindset of server-server with web-only clients. Sure, there was the CLI app, but it was more of a proof-of-concept than Outlook or even Mail.app for IMAP. In terms of a project, Wave would greatly reduce the overhead of emailing in my project teams. We do web development, and there's a designer, PM, writer, AM, outsourced QA, and me, the developer. Right now there's this huge, hulking in-house business tracker meant to coordinate between the parties. Using a wave per site would be great, as we could all communicate on the same whiteboard. If you're still doing real-time collaborative, SubEthaEdit or ZoHo notes could fill the gap. Or, you could host the server yourself?

lincolnq 16y ago
Very much so. I'm a bit of a client-fetishist, and so I'd rather see Wave be broken down into a protocol and server, allowing for client applications to access the wave, rather than deal with a web app, which still tend to lag behind a nice cocoa app. I think this is already the case. Didn't Google demo a command-line Wave app?