4 ms·

I didn't find anything new in this article. But to have a few use-cases, I found this lifehacker article better (http://lifehacker.com/5381219/google-waves-bes

I didn't find anything new in this article. But to have a few use-cases, I found this lifehacker article better (http://lifehacker.com/5381219/google-waves-best-use-cases http://lifehacker.com/5381219/google-waves-best-use-cases) (it is a crowdsourced collection from users on how they would use google wave, rather than one person speculating on various uses). The use-case from the air traffic controller seems to be the best - as if wave was an app made for traffic controllers!

jlees 17y ago
I found the lifehacker article to be a rosy-eyed view of what people would use their idea of what Wave is for. Some of them just wouldn't fly with the current UI and so on. swombat's more on the button as to what Wave actually is.
- notlisted 17y ago
  Exactly. That lifehacker article was terrible. People were buying the spin and the promise or real-time collaboration. The OP article made great points, and in principle google wave (client and the underlying protocol) should provide everything the article outlines, HOWEVER, as is, the web client solves little or nothing. The interface is sluggish, mysteriously buggy, overly complex and it actually exacerbates one of the MAIN problems it was going to resolve, ie the endless indentations. It fails #miserably# at that, because of the incredible amount of "chrome" (icons, borders, etc etc) used in the interface, especially in large public waves, but even with a very limited set of co-workers, you'll end up with a sea of bordered bubbles impossible to read for an ordinary human being. I've used wave for 2 weeks now, I'm fully aware of all the browser short-cuts and features and my appreciation for it has waned. Contrast this with etherpad (http://www.etherpad.com http://www.etherpad.com). It has its own issues (e.g. no indication of age of edits) but it actually works and #everyone# I've introduced to that site keeps using it and I've received many kudos. Since google wave is both a client and a protocol.Perhaps an independent group can create a wave client that actually works...

jlees 17y ago

I found the lifehacker article to be a rosy-eyed view of what people would use their idea of what Wave is for. Some of them just wouldn't fly with the current UI and so on. swombat's more on the button as to what Wave actually is.

notlisted 17y ago
Exactly. That lifehacker article was terrible. People were buying the spin and the promise or real-time collaboration. The OP article made great points, and in principle google wave (client and the underlying protocol) should provide everything the article outlines, HOWEVER, as is, the web client solves little or nothing. The interface is sluggish, mysteriously buggy, overly complex and it actually exacerbates one of the MAIN problems it was going to resolve, ie the endless indentations. It fails #miserably# at that, because of the incredible amount of "chrome" (icons, borders, etc etc) used in the interface, especially in large public waves, but even with a very limited set of co-workers, you'll end up with a sea of bordered bubbles impossible to read for an ordinary human being. I've used wave for 2 weeks now, I'm fully aware of all the browser short-cuts and features and my appreciation for it has waned. Contrast this with etherpad (http://www.etherpad.com http://www.etherpad.com). It has its own issues (e.g. no indication of age of edits) but it actually works and #everyone# I've introduced to that site keeps using it and I've received many kudos. Since google wave is both a client and a protocol.Perhaps an independent group can create a wave client that actually works...