<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do you prefer Google Wave&#8217;s swirl or a clean river?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/</link>
	<description>Technology, politics, culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:43:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Juliano Rizzo</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10593</link>
		<dc:creator>Juliano Rizzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:22:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10593</guid>
		<description>I just finished reading Dreaming in Code and Google Wave reminds me of the initial Chandler goals. Google Wave is centralized but based on the presentation it is possible to connect servers even different implementations, it is an open protocol. I can imagine it would be possible to do something more p2p on top of this really powerful platform. A Calendar is probably one of the first things people will try to implement. And I believe they are using the right technologies to build it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just finished reading Dreaming in Code and Google Wave reminds me of the initial Chandler goals. Google Wave is centralized but based on the presentation it is possible to connect servers even different implementations, it is an open protocol. I can imagine it would be possible to do something more p2p on top of this really powerful platform. A Calendar is probably one of the first things people will try to implement. And I believe they are using the right technologies to build it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Backdrifter: User Interface Implications of Google Wave</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10555</link>
		<dc:creator>Backdrifter: User Interface Implications of Google Wave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10555</guid>
		<description>[...] important to note, though, that different people have different needs. For example, both Scott Rosenberg and Fred Wilson find the interface to be complicated. Fortunately, under the open development model [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] important to note, though, that different people have different needs. For example, both Scott Rosenberg and Fred Wilson find the interface to be complicated. Fortunately, under the open development model [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CarlosT</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10538</link>
		<dc:creator>CarlosT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:28:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10538</guid>
		<description>Scott, the Google folks didn&#039;t address it specifically, but with a bit of additional software, I think the Wave concept would be highly useful in the calendaring and task management realm.  If you had a Wave that was tracking a task or a project, and you could see the status of the various tasks update live as tasks are completed, negotiated, reshuffled, reprioritized, and so on, much tighter coordination becomes possible.

As for your point about email, the demo did address that issue in that yes, Wave is being published as protocol in the same way that email, http, ftp, etc. were all published and made available to all.  They called it the three Ps: product, platform, and protocol, with the last being the relevant P.

So Wave is a product that Google will be releasing later this year, but it&#039;s also a platform, which means that you can install a server to handle Waves just like you can install a server to handle email, or web pages, or whatever.  Finally, since it&#039;s also a protocol, other people can develop their own implementations of it, and integrate it into their own products.  Just like you can have an email client that can support various email protocols, newsgroups, etc., you could create a client that could support the Wave protocol as well.

In the demo, they had a section where they talked about interacting with a couple outside companies that had implemented their own Wave servers and UIs.  It operated pretty much like email, in that all they needed was the person&#039;s address and the servers handled the rest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, the Google folks didn&#8217;t address it specifically, but with a bit of additional software, I think the Wave concept would be highly useful in the calendaring and task management realm.  If you had a Wave that was tracking a task or a project, and you could see the status of the various tasks update live as tasks are completed, negotiated, reshuffled, reprioritized, and so on, much tighter coordination becomes possible.</p>
<p>As for your point about email, the demo did address that issue in that yes, Wave is being published as protocol in the same way that email, http, ftp, etc. were all published and made available to all.  They called it the three Ps: product, platform, and protocol, with the last being the relevant P.</p>
<p>So Wave is a product that Google will be releasing later this year, but it&#8217;s also a platform, which means that you can install a server to handle Waves just like you can install a server to handle email, or web pages, or whatever.  Finally, since it&#8217;s also a protocol, other people can develop their own implementations of it, and integrate it into their own products.  Just like you can have an email client that can support various email protocols, newsgroups, etc., you could create a client that could support the Wave protocol as well.</p>
<p>In the demo, they had a section where they talked about interacting with a couple outside companies that had implemented their own Wave servers and UIs.  It operated pretty much like email, in that all they needed was the person&#8217;s address and the servers handled the rest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Firth</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10529</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Firth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 16:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10529</guid>
		<description>Scott -- thanks for the pointer to the Jack Loechner article.  That&#039;s interesting research -- particularly as it impacts design for the netbook-size screen.  

As someone who works exclusively on a laptop, I&#039;ve noticed how many websites assume their readers are using a much larger screen (could it be because nearly all web designers work on a large screen canvass?).  With more and more people using netbooks, though, I&#039;m wondering if more designers will be pressured to finally make their sites work in a smaller frame, which in turn means simplifying the layout more than making everything smaller (you&#039;d hope).  And here&#039;s evidence that supports that simpler layout. 

What&#039;s the biggest impediment to things going that way?  I think you nailed it in suggesting the &quot;demands of different groups in an organization fighting for home-page space.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott &#8212; thanks for the pointer to the Jack Loechner article.  That&#8217;s interesting research &#8212; particularly as it impacts design for the netbook-size screen.  </p>
<p>As someone who works exclusively on a laptop, I&#8217;ve noticed how many websites assume their readers are using a much larger screen (could it be because nearly all web designers work on a large screen canvass?).  With more and more people using netbooks, though, I&#8217;m wondering if more designers will be pressured to finally make their sites work in a smaller frame, which in turn means simplifying the layout more than making everything smaller (you&#8217;d hope).  And here&#8217;s evidence that supports that simpler layout. </p>
<p>What&#8217;s the biggest impediment to things going that way?  I think you nailed it in suggesting the &#8220;demands of different groups in an organization fighting for home-page space.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Rosenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10515</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Rosenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 06:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10515</guid>
		<description>Carlos: the Chandler comparison is interesting. But Chandler was and is really focused on calendaring and task management (with an early focus on email that got dropped) --the whole Outlook-killer thing was always overblown. Interestingly, one of the biggest early goals of Chandler was to do all the stuff Kapor wanted to do &lt;i&gt;without a server,&lt;/i&gt; peer-to-peer style. Wave, of course, is precisely the opposite -- it can do so many neat tricks because it&#039;s totally hosted, and there is only one master copy of each Wave sitting on the server (Google&#039;s or, in the open-source version, anyone&#039;s, I guess).

Kevin: That would have been the false-start redesign in May 2000 where we tried to force people to click through to &quot;section fronts&quot;/topic pages before getting to story pages. Definitely during my time. I could tell stories! But another time. 

In the ancient single-conversation versus branching-conversation divide (which, I agree, usually has non-geeks in the single-thread and geeks in the branching-thread camps) Wave is definitely coming down on the branching side. 

I agree, Scott, that Wave has huge potential in the areas you mention. In that sense it&#039;s less an &quot;Outlook killer&quot; than, say, a Basecamp killer.

Email&#039;s great virtue (and also Achilles heel, in re: spam) is that it is fully open and public and it allows you to send messages out of the blue to people you don&#039;t know as long as you have their address. What I&#039;m wondering now -- and maybe I missed it in that very long demo -- is how (or whether) Wave allows for that kind of communication. If it doesn&#039;t, then its utility is much narrower (though its vulnerability to spam is also much lower).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carlos: the Chandler comparison is interesting. But Chandler was and is really focused on calendaring and task management (with an early focus on email that got dropped) &#8211;the whole Outlook-killer thing was always overblown. Interestingly, one of the biggest early goals of Chandler was to do all the stuff Kapor wanted to do <i>without a server,</i> peer-to-peer style. Wave, of course, is precisely the opposite &#8212; it can do so many neat tricks because it&#8217;s totally hosted, and there is only one master copy of each Wave sitting on the server (Google&#8217;s or, in the open-source version, anyone&#8217;s, I guess).</p>
<p>Kevin: That would have been the false-start redesign in May 2000 where we tried to force people to click through to &#8220;section fronts&#8221;/topic pages before getting to story pages. Definitely during my time. I could tell stories! But another time. </p>
<p>In the ancient single-conversation versus branching-conversation divide (which, I agree, usually has non-geeks in the single-thread and geeks in the branching-thread camps) Wave is definitely coming down on the branching side. </p>
<p>I agree, Scott, that Wave has huge potential in the areas you mention. In that sense it&#8217;s less an &#8220;Outlook killer&#8221; than, say, a Basecamp killer.</p>
<p>Email&#8217;s great virtue (and also Achilles heel, in re: spam) is that it is fully open and public and it allows you to send messages out of the blue to people you don&#8217;t know as long as you have their address. What I&#8217;m wondering now &#8212; and maybe I missed it in that very long demo &#8212; is how (or whether) Wave allows for that kind of communication. If it doesn&#8217;t, then its utility is much narrower (though its vulnerability to spam is also much lower).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Mace</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10514</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Mace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 04:21:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10514</guid>
		<description>Wave has tremendous potential to document workflows and easily allow their creation to be played back as necessary. I see tremendous utility for certain use cases, such as the process leading up to scheduling a group meeting, or being able to trace back accountability for same after the fact. I&#039;ll admit your post does have me wondering whether Wave is overkill or not for this particular use case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wave has tremendous potential to document workflows and easily allow their creation to be played back as necessary. I see tremendous utility for certain use cases, such as the process leading up to scheduling a group meeting, or being able to trace back accountability for same after the fact. I&#8217;ll admit your post does have me wondering whether Wave is overkill or not for this particular use case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Arthur</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10512</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 23:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10512</guid>
		<description>I like your analysis. Wave organizes conversations in hierarchical lists. Programmers love those but ordinary people don&#039;t think that way. 

I&#039;m reminded of when Salon.com revamped their web site a few years back and made the big mistake of changing the focus from the single stream of articles. They quickly reverted. I don&#039;t remember if that was during your time their Scott.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like your analysis. Wave organizes conversations in hierarchical lists. Programmers love those but ordinary people don&#8217;t think that way. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m reminded of when Salon.com revamped their web site a few years back and made the big mistake of changing the focus from the single stream of articles. They quickly reverted. I don&#8217;t remember if that was during your time their Scott.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CarlosT</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10510</link>
		<dc:creator>CarlosT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 22:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10510</guid>
		<description>After having watched the demo, I think the article&#039;s focus is a bit off.  Wave isn&#039;t very much like a blog, it&#039;s more of a cross between Outlook and a wiki.  Actually, it reminds me of the targets that the Chandler team set for themselves early on, but Wave seems much more likely to me to be an Outlook-killer than Chandler.

As one of the main techy people in my small company, I can tell you that this has tremendous appeal.  Just being able to install software on a web server that could then be available to everyone without installing new software on their individual machines would make life much easier.  Also, new features and workflows would be much easier to implement and refine over time with a product like Wave because we could roll it out bit by bit.  They didn&#039;t get into it, but it&#039;s not hard to imagine a calendaring and task management system that could be integrated with Wave to replicate all the functionality of Exchange server, but with much less cost.  And the fact that everything runs natively from a modern browser means that people working offsite could be easily integrated without resorting to things like Outlook Web Access, which is cool, but lacks some of the important features of the rich client.

Especially cool was the idea of having a source control type system for collaboratively edited documents.  That&#039;s a major issue for my firm right now and something to manage the process of integrating content produced by a variety of people would be a huge plus for us.  All in all, a very exciting idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After having watched the demo, I think the article&#8217;s focus is a bit off.  Wave isn&#8217;t very much like a blog, it&#8217;s more of a cross between Outlook and a wiki.  Actually, it reminds me of the targets that the Chandler team set for themselves early on, but Wave seems much more likely to me to be an Outlook-killer than Chandler.</p>
<p>As one of the main techy people in my small company, I can tell you that this has tremendous appeal.  Just being able to install software on a web server that could then be available to everyone without installing new software on their individual machines would make life much easier.  Also, new features and workflows would be much easier to implement and refine over time with a product like Wave because we could roll it out bit by bit.  They didn&#8217;t get into it, but it&#8217;s not hard to imagine a calendaring and task management system that could be integrated with Wave to replicate all the functionality of Exchange server, but with much less cost.  And the fact that everything runs natively from a modern browser means that people working offsite could be easily integrated without resorting to things like Outlook Web Access, which is cool, but lacks some of the important features of the rich client.</p>
<p>Especially cool was the idea of having a source control type system for collaboratively edited documents.  That&#8217;s a major issue for my firm right now and something to manage the process of integrating content produced by a variety of people would be a huge plus for us.  All in all, a very exciting idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ajw_93</title>
		<link>http://www.wordyard.com/2009/05/29/wave-or-river/comment-page-1/#comment-10486</link>
		<dc:creator>ajw_93</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 17:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1846#comment-10486</guid>
		<description>Word.  Designing a home page is definitely tricky; my organization is setting up a re-do to take place over the next year and I&#039;ll be interested to see how many groups actually make it on to the home page.  Internal pages do scroll in a single stream, though! 

(Actually, Wave looks like a cluttered up &quot;Outlook Today&quot; screen to me.  Meanwhile, Gmail can&#039;t let me see my Tasks in a pane?  Argh.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Word.  Designing a home page is definitely tricky; my organization is setting up a re-do to take place over the next year and I&#8217;ll be interested to see how many groups actually make it on to the home page.  Internal pages do scroll in a single stream, though! </p>
<p>(Actually, Wave looks like a cluttered up &#8220;Outlook Today&#8221; screen to me.  Meanwhile, Gmail can&#8217;t let me see my Tasks in a pane?  Argh.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
