Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Jos van den Oever]

Op vrijdag 18 augustus 2017 02:11:39 CEST schreef Thomas Pfeiffer:
> Hi everyone,
> I've finally managed to enter all of our proposed requirements for a
> KDE-wide primary IM/chat solution into a tool for creating Kano surveys:
> 
> http://www.kanosurvey.com/?id=3959
> 
> The Kano model [1] categorizes features not just in "must have" and "nice to
> have" but into five categories along two dimensions.
> This results in a more holistic view on the requirements, at the expense of
> making the survey quite long because participants have to rate each feature
> on two dimensions.
> 
> So, please fill in the survey, but be aware that overall you'll have to
> answer a whopping 106 questions (rating 53 requirements on two dimensions
> each), so please reserve enough time.
> The survey took me 13 minutes to complete, but of course I've already read
> the requirements countless times, so you might need a bit more time.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your participation,
> Thomas
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano_model

Hello Thomas,

I converted the table to html for you. This is how I did it:

1) open LibreOffice, export to HTML
2) remove all style= attributes with sed
3) change  to  for header cells
4) fiddle with the css at the top

Cheers,
Jos


Requirements for a primary Chat_IM solution for KDE.html
Description: application/xhtml


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Eike Hein]

On 09/05/2017 08:15 AM, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> Here are the results of the survey:
> https://sessellift.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/results-of-the-requirements-survey-for-a-kde-wide-chat-solution/
> Now it's time for us to find a solution that fits the profile!

Here's some thoughts from the Konversation team on what to make of this
going forward:

https://blogs.kde.org/2017/09/05/konversation-2x-2018-new-user-interface-matrix-support-mobile-version


> Cheers,
> Thomas

Cheers,
Eike

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Christian Loosli]

Hi Thomas, all, 

First of all: thanks for putting the survey up. 
I think the idea of matching these to protocols in a wiki is also good, and I 
can gladly help with the IRC part. 

As a wiki is more a binary (or trinary, in this case) thing I shall give a bit 
of a longer read on the points here: 

With my KDE hat on: 

The survey is quite what I expected, even though the Telegram like GUI, 
Avatars and Stickers got even less love than I expected . 

>From a protocol side of view, to me it is rather clear that the combination of 
IRC and Matrix will cover the biggest amount of points, so protocol-wise I 
recommend a status quo, using IRC (freenode?) with a decent Matrix bridge. 

Because: 

Both protocols, especially together, fulfil most if not all of the must have 
requirements, from FOSS to free clients, protocol development and type. 
Impact on KDE infra should be minimal, as freenode can gladly continued to be 
used, and whether we want to host our own Matrix server or not is not 
mandatory and to be defined. 

The wide availability of various clients covers most cases, e.g. 
people who want easier file sharing, cross device history (without having to 
use an existing or set up an own bouncer) or a slightly more modern protocol 
can gladly use Matrix.
Those who want a more IRC like client for big / very active channels,
those who want or need a CLI client, those who prefer anonymity  (using Tor, 
being able to use chat without having to provide any personal details or 
registering at all) can use IRC. 
The availability of web clients should also cover availability in most 
countries, universities and the likes, whilst Tor  (little caveat, see below, 
freenode) takes care of the others. 

With this combination I think we can cover the biggest amount of must have, 
inclusion and attractors, and also some of the "nice to have" ones. 

Now of course there is room for improvement. Right now you have to go for some 
compromises if you choose one solution over the other  (important: you have, 
not the other users. So nobody "suffers" because you use either IRC or Matrix) 
If we had an official Matrix client, we would have these features available for 
people whilst not sacrificing integration into the desktop and resource usage. 
If our IRC client would support file sharing (which is technically possible, 
even with drag and drop) and stuff like opt-in image previews, IRC people 
would not miss out on these features either.  So if someone had the time, it 
would be great if we had some improvements in the IRC client  (file sharing, 
image previews, maybe other) and a native Qt/KDE Matrix client (desktop 
integration, resource usage, ...) 

Now with a freenode hat on: 

Still the survey is more or less what I expected. And from a freenode PoV, the 
IRC with matrix bridge solution also sounds good. Whilst Matrix currently is 
not the solution we at freenode are focusing on, we are working closely with 
Matrix devs to improve the current bridge and iron out some of the known 
caveats.  So it's unlikely that the bridge will go away or get worse, it's 
more likely that it will improve  (e.g. stability, being able to deal with 
invexes, removes etc.) 

There are some open points we (freenode) have to work on, and these are known. 
There is e.g. the chicken egg problem of not being able to use Tor without 
registering an account first, as otherwise we'd see even more abuse from Tor. 
Registering an account can't be done via Tor yet. There are also, as per 
above, known issues in the Matrix <> IRC bridge  (which we do not maintain, 
but we have an interest of it improving). We are working on these though. 

*hats off*

tl;dr: 

the status quo of protocols, IRC with Matrix bridge, covers a great amount of 
these points, especially the must have and including ones. 
Client-side there is room for improvement, but that's way easier and better 
than switching around protocols. 


Kind regards, 

Christian 

Fwd: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[argonel]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Eike Hein  wrote:
> On September 5, 2017 8:15:47 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer 
>  wrote:
>>Here are the results of the survey:
>>https://sessellift.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/results-of-the-requirements-survey-for-a-kde-wide-chat-solution/
>>Now it's time for us to find a solution that fits the profile!
>>Cheers,
>>Thomas
>
> Hi,
>
> I propose we:
>
> * Turn the must-have list into a wiki table and create columns for each chat 
> solution

I've created the table and done a first pass of filling in the IRC
information: https://community.kde.org/IM_Survey_Results

I had a bit of trouble with Calligra Sheets, and so the first pass of
short descriptions is all there is for now.

> * In each cell, use
> ** ... a red background to indicate a feature is not available, and neither 
> planned nor likely to happen
> ** ... a yellow background if a feature is either not yet widely available or 
> still in the planning stages, with text (in the cell? footnote?) having to 
> provide details including timeline of expect ed availability
> ** ... a green background if a feature is supported

Your wish is my command. It uses the same templates as WIkipedia:
{{No}, {{Maybe}}, {{Yes}}. There's also an {{H}} template (as on
Wikipedia) that provides a tooltip for longer explanations. If you
would like to know more about how to use them, you can check out their
documentation.

> I can take a stab at the Matrix and maybe IRC v3 columns (especially as the 
> Konversation UI rewrite and planned Matrix support imho turns some 
> additionals cells yellow, but even without Konvi-NG I think it's compelling 
> personally).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Eike
> --
> Plasma, apps developer
> KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer
> Seoul, South Korea

~Eli

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Eike Hein]

On September 5, 2017 8:15:47 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer 
 wrote:
>Here are the results of the survey:
>https://sessellift.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/results-of-the-requirements-survey-for-a-kde-wide-chat-solution/
>Now it's time for us to find a solution that fits the profile!
>Cheers,
>Thomas

Hi,

I propose we:

* Turn the must-have list into a wiki table and create columns for each chat 
solution
* In each cell, use
** ... a red background to indicate a feature is not available, and neither 
planned nor likely to happen
** ... a yellow background if a feature is either not yet widely available or 
still in the planning stages, with text (in the cell? footnote?) having to 
provide details including timeline of expect ed availability
** ... a green background if a feature is supported

I can take a stab at the Matrix and maybe IRC v3 columns (especially as the 
Konversation UI rewrite and planned Matrix support imho turns some additionals 
cells yellow, but even without Konvi-NG I think it's compelling personally).


Cheers,
Eike
-- 
Plasma, apps developer
KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer
Seoul, South Korea

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

Here are the results of the survey:
https://sessellift.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/results-of-the-requirements-survey-for-a-kde-wide-chat-solution/
Now it's time for us to find a solution that fits the profile!
Cheers,
Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On Freitag, 25. August 2017 12:46:16 CEST Kenny Duffus wrote:
> On Friday, 18 August 2017 01:11:39 BST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > I've finally managed to enter all of our proposed requirements for a
> > KDE-wide primary IM/chat solution into a tool for creating Kano
> > surveys:
> > 
> > http://www.kanosurvey.com/?id=3959
> 
> Do you have a planned "closing date" for the survey to let people know
> when they should make sure they have done it by?

I have now finally found the time to blog about the survey and there I have 
given people time until Thursday to fill out the survey.

Cheers,
Thomas

[1] 
https://sessellift.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/the-quest-for-a-common-chatim-solution/



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Kenny Duffus]

On Friday, 18 August 2017 01:11:39 BST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I've finally managed to enter all of our proposed requirements for a
> KDE-wide primary IM/chat solution into a tool for creating Kano
> surveys:
> 
> http://www.kanosurvey.com/?id=3959
> 

Do you have a planned "closing date" for the survey to let people know 
when they should make sure they have done it by?

-- 

Kenny

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Boudewijn Rempt]

Now in the right thread:

I actually think I missed two things that would be important to me:

* no logging: it should be possible to have no public logs of a channel
* per-channel nicks: to avoid people joining in getting renamed to Guest


On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> > I've finally managed to enter all of our proposed requirements for a 
> > KDE-wide 
> > primary IM/chat solution into a tool for creating Kano surveys:
> > 
> > http://www.kanosurvey.com/?id=3959
> > 
> > The Kano model [1] categorizes features not just in "must have" and "nice 
> > to 
> > have" but into five categories along two dimensions.
> > This results in a more holistic view on the requirements, at the expense of 
> > making the survey quite long because participants have to rate each feature 
> > on 
> > two dimensions.
> 
> Weird... I would say that "I expect" is much stronger than "I like".
> 
> > 
> > So, please fill in the survey, but be aware that overall you'll have to 
> > answer 
> > a whopping 106 questions (rating 53 requirements on two dimensions each), 
> > so 
> > please reserve enough time.
> > The survey took me 13 minutes to complete, but of course I've already read 
> > the 
> > requirements countless times, so you might need a bit more time.
> > 
> > Thank you in advance for your participation,
> > Thomas
> > 
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano_model
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Mirko Boehm (KDE)]

Hi,

> On 18. Aug 2017, at 02:11, Thomas Pfeiffer  wrote:
> 
> I've finally managed to enter all of our proposed requirements for a KDE-wide 
> primary IM/chat solution into a tool for creating Kano surveys:
> 
> http://www.kanosurvey.com/?id=3959 
> 
> The Kano model [1] categorizes features not just in "must have" and "nice to 
> have" but into five categories along two dimensions.
> This results in a more holistic view on the requirements, at the expense of 
> making the survey quite long because participants have to rate each feature 
> on 
> two dimensions.

I walked through the questionnaire and filled it in. Looks good overall.

Here are some comments:
It may make sense to split the "FOSS clients available for desktop (at least 
Linux/BSD + Windows) as well as mobile” into 3 for Linux, Windows and mobile. I 
personally care for Linux, OSX and mobile, and not in the least for Windows, so 
this was difficult to answer.
"Client has low resource usage (so most likely no web or electron apps)” 
combines two things that are initially unrelated. Of course I want low resource 
usage, but I also want a web app for platforms where no native clients are 
available.

It did not take very long to fill in the survey. 

Thanks!

Mirko.
-- 
-- 
Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm

Re: Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I've finally managed to enter all of our proposed requirements for a KDE-wide 
> primary IM/chat solution into a tool for creating Kano surveys:
> 
> http://www.kanosurvey.com/?id=3959
> 
> The Kano model [1] categorizes features not just in "must have" and "nice to 
> have" but into five categories along two dimensions.
> This results in a more holistic view on the requirements, at the expense of 
> making the survey quite long because participants have to rate each feature 
> on 
> two dimensions.

Weird... I would say that "I expect" is much stronger than "I like".

> 
> So, please fill in the survey, but be aware that overall you'll have to 
> answer 
> a whopping 106 questions (rating 53 requirements on two dimensions each), so 
> please reserve enough time.
> The survey took me 13 minutes to complete, but of course I've already read 
> the 
> requirements countless times, so you might need a bit more time.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your participation,
> Thomas
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano_model
> 

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Survey for prioritization of requirements for an IM/chat solution for KDE

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

Hi everyone,
I've finally managed to enter all of our proposed requirements for a KDE-wide 
primary IM/chat solution into a tool for creating Kano surveys:

http://www.kanosurvey.com/?id=3959

The Kano model [1] categorizes features not just in "must have" and "nice to 
have" but into five categories along two dimensions.
This results in a more holistic view on the requirements, at the expense of 
making the survey quite long because participants have to rate each feature on 
two dimensions.

So, please fill in the survey, but be aware that overall you'll have to answer 
a whopping 106 questions (rating 53 requirements on two dimensions each), so 
please reserve enough time.
The survey took me 13 minutes to complete, but of course I've already read the 
requirements countless times, so you might need a bit more time.

Thank you in advance for your participation,
Thomas

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano_model