4 ms·

Tough to say without trying it, but I think this has the potential to be a very flexible format and therefore potentially cover more use cases than you are givi

by mlinsey 17y ago

Tough to say without trying it, but I think this has the potential to be a very flexible format and therefore potentially cover more use cases than you are giving it credit for. As an example, I wouldn't want to turn writing the page of pros vs. cons to my boss into a big collaborative discussion. But once I write the big long list in draft mode and then send it off, it would probably be great if the boss and the whole team could have a conversation about the document in real-time and at various places in the document. It would sure be more manageable than the big email chains in outlook that I've got now.

stcredzero 17y ago
I think wave is an indicator of something profound about what our computing and networking infrastructure is good for. It's good for us to collaborate on digital content. It's not so good for us to cooperate without that 3rd digital object -- directly with each other. For that to happen, we need to revamp the entire interface, so it's not a total perception and attention sink. We need to be able to interact with the world and other people in the world, and have computing as only a side channel or an augmentation.
dkarl 17y ago
What is "flexibility" from a technical point of view is "ambiguity" from a social point of view. Is the conversation real-time or only potentially real-time? IM is a real-time conversation, like two people speaking. E-mail is not. A single protocol and interface for both means people will be constantly confused about each other's intentions. I like the idea of combining and persisting all communications about a single topic, but in the screenshots it looks like all Wave messages look the same. "Draft" mode vs. keystroke mode provides a clue, but what if I don't see the message arrive? What if I have a real-time conversation with somebody, and then five minutes after it ends, one of us posts another message? We have to add some kind of comment indicating whether it is intended as a continuation of the previous conversation, the beginning of a new real-time conversation, or a one-off message (with the sender perhaps not available to chat at the moment.) Everything that is currently implicit in the mode of communication (email, IM, etc.) and in mode-specific indicators (IM status, etc.) will now have to be communicated explicitly. That seems like a big step backwards. Google Wave will do well if it usefully aggregates many different modes of communication, but if it attempts to unify them then it will be socially unworkable, a total flop.
- skorgu 17y ago
  I don't follow your logic at all. I frequently have essentially real-time conversations via email. If someone steps away the conversation doesn't 'end' it just reverts to a slower pace. Gmail with its conversation-oriented view is already closer to an IM flow than most traditional email clients. I don't have email interactions or IM interactions, I have conversations. I frequently switch off an email chain to an IM or telephone or even in person. If wave lets me coordinate that all in one interface and let me access the same history and context from multiple locations it will be phenomenally useful for me.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    I have real-time conversations via email, too. The difference is in the expectations of the participants. It's subtle and social. I wouldn't just walk away from a fast-running IM conversation to go to lunch without saying something to let the other person know I was going to be gone for a while. That would be rude. Doubly so on the phone. You don't just hang up on somebody in the middle of a conversation unless you're pissed at them. Email is different. Nobody thinks it's weird or rude if you disappear from an email conversation for ten minutes. After sending an email, you can even walk away from your computer and not check your email again for hours, unless the content of your message indicated otherwise. In contrast, an IM that isn't a one-off message says, "If you're there and available, I would like to have a real-time chat with you." Each mode of communication sets different expectations. It's quite handy. If you unify everything into a single mode of communication, then you have to set expectations explicitly. "Hi, Joe. Can you tell me XYZ? Please reply when you are available to have an interactive real-time conversation with me." "Hi, Joe. Can you tell me XYZ? Please reply at your leisure. I may not be available immediately to discuss your reply but will respond at some point if I have further questions." See the difference? Of course, the different modes of communication don't mean the same things to everybody. I expect every company and every group of friends has a slightly different IM culture, for instance.
    - skorgu 17y ago
      Your conversational partners are substantially more polite than mine :) It's not even remotely uncommon for people in my circle to leave an IM or even a group chat in the middle. We all have dozens of things going on at any given time and it's expected that, unless the conversation is Really Important it will take second fiddle to the emergency of the moment. So for us all conversations implicitly fit into your second category unless pretty explicitly stated already. I concede, however, that if your typical behavior doesn't fit this model already wave is likely to be somewhere between useless and actively frustrating.

by mlinsey 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago

I think wave is an indicator of something profound about what our computing and networking infrastructure is good for. It's good for us to collaborate on digital content. It's not so good for us to cooperate without that 3rd digital object -- directly with each other. For that to happen, we need to revamp the entire interface, so it's not a total perception and attention sink. We need to be able to interact with the world and other people in the world, and have computing as only a side channel or an augmentation.

dkarl 17y ago

What is "flexibility" from a technical point of view is "ambiguity" from a social point of view. Is the conversation real-time or only potentially real-time? IM is a real-time conversation, like two people speaking. E-mail is not. A single protocol and interface for both means people will be constantly confused about each other's intentions. I like the idea of combining and persisting all communications about a single topic, but in the screenshots it looks like all Wave messages look the same. "Draft" mode vs. keystroke mode provides a clue, but what if I don't see the message arrive? What if I have a real-time conversation with somebody, and then five minutes after it ends, one of us posts another message? We have to add some kind of comment indicating whether it is intended as a continuation of the previous conversation, the beginning of a new real-time conversation, or a one-off message (with the sender perhaps not available to chat at the moment.) Everything that is currently implicit in the mode of communication (email, IM, etc.) and in mode-specific indicators (IM status, etc.) will now have to be communicated explicitly. That seems like a big step backwards. Google Wave will do well if it usefully aggregates many different modes of communication, but if it attempts to unify them then it will be socially unworkable, a total flop.

skorgu 17y ago
I don't follow your logic at all. I frequently have essentially real-time conversations via email. If someone steps away the conversation doesn't 'end' it just reverts to a slower pace. Gmail with its conversation-oriented view is already closer to an IM flow than most traditional email clients. I don't have email interactions or IM interactions, I have conversations. I frequently switch off an email chain to an IM or telephone or even in person. If wave lets me coordinate that all in one interface and let me access the same history and context from multiple locations it will be phenomenally useful for me.
- dkarl 17y ago
  I have real-time conversations via email, too. The difference is in the expectations of the participants. It's subtle and social. I wouldn't just walk away from a fast-running IM conversation to go to lunch without saying something to let the other person know I was going to be gone for a while. That would be rude. Doubly so on the phone. You don't just hang up on somebody in the middle of a conversation unless you're pissed at them. Email is different. Nobody thinks it's weird or rude if you disappear from an email conversation for ten minutes. After sending an email, you can even walk away from your computer and not check your email again for hours, unless the content of your message indicated otherwise. In contrast, an IM that isn't a one-off message says, "If you're there and available, I would like to have a real-time chat with you." Each mode of communication sets different expectations. It's quite handy. If you unify everything into a single mode of communication, then you have to set expectations explicitly. "Hi, Joe. Can you tell me XYZ? Please reply when you are available to have an interactive real-time conversation with me." "Hi, Joe. Can you tell me XYZ? Please reply at your leisure. I may not be available immediately to discuss your reply but will respond at some point if I have further questions." See the difference? Of course, the different modes of communication don't mean the same things to everybody. I expect every company and every group of friends has a slightly different IM culture, for instance.
  - skorgu 17y ago
    Your conversational partners are substantially more polite than mine :) It's not even remotely uncommon for people in my circle to leave an IM or even a group chat in the middle. We all have dozens of things going on at any given time and it's expected that, unless the conversation is Really Important it will take second fiddle to the emergency of the moment. So for us all conversations implicitly fit into your second category unless pretty explicitly stated already. I concede, however, that if your typical behavior doesn't fit this model already wave is likely to be somewhere between useless and actively frustrating.