[Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
Hi, olpc has decided to present ad-hoc networks like they did with mesh networks: three icons in the neighborhood view representing ad-hoc networks with the channels 1, 6, 11. This should preserve the workflow previously introduced and ease the use of ad-hoc networks. More details for the reasoning can be found in [1]. I think this is a great idea and should maybe be adopted by the upstream development, too. So here is what we found out so far: - 3 icons in the neighborhood view representing the 3 channels - we would need three different icons allowing to differentiate the different channels (an interesting idea is here [3]) - those icons should show the status like the Access Point icons does (connected/unconnected) - if someone clicks on one of the icons he joins a possible existing networks or creates a new network - a badge could indicate if a network is already 'active' created by someone else - naming: so far we decided to not name the networks mesh networks to avoid confusion, some voted for 'local network' some for 'our network', others, votes? - the option to create adhoc networks should be removed from the frame device to avoid confusion What do people think about that? Can the design team help to make this happen? Regards, Simon [1] http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-December/026831.html [2] http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9845 [3] http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100422/d9d33027/attachment-0001.png http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/028315.html ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 04/27/2010 08:54 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: Hi, olpc has decided to present ad-hoc networks like they did with mesh networks: three icons in the neighborhood view representing ad-hoc networks with the channels 1, 6, 11. This should preserve the workflow previously introduced and ease the use of ad-hoc networks. More details for the reasoning can be found in [1]. I think this is a great idea and should maybe be adopted by the upstream development, too. So here is what we found out so far: - 3 icons in the neighborhood view representing the 3 channels - we would need three different icons allowing to differentiate the different channels (an interesting idea is here [3]) - those icons should show the status like the Access Point icons does (connected/unconnected) - if someone clicks on one of the icons he joins a possible existing networks or creates a new network - a badge could indicate if a network is already 'active' created by someone else - naming: so far we decided to not name the networks mesh networks to avoid confusion, some voted for 'local network' some for 'our network', others, votes? - the option to create adhoc networks should be removed from the frame device to avoid confusion What do people think about that? Can the design team help to make this happen? Regards, Simon [1] http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-December/026831.html [2] http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9845 [3] http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100422/d9d33027/attachment-0001.png http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/028315.html As a follow up I put on my designers hat and created the icons myself (based on the maya numerals), screenshot attached. What is missing is a badge to indicate if the network is active (someone has created the adhoc network already). Any good ideas how that badge could look like? Naming: Any ideas, comments about the naming of the networks? 'Local network or our network, other ideas? Thanks, Simon <>___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > On 04/27/2010 08:54 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > >> ... > > What is missing is a badge to indicate if the network is active (someone has > created the adhoc network already). Any good ideas how that badge could look > like? > Shouldn't ad-hoc network icons be gray if empty/inactive and colored by the creator's Sugar Learner colors once created? If the creator's beacon stops, then subsequent beaconer's colors might be adopted (if you want to extract that information)[1]. Although, the color change may be the source of some confusion. --Fred [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg07668.html ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
frederick wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > > > On 04/27/2010 08:54 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > > > >> ... > > > > > > What is missing is a badge to indicate if the network is active (someone has > > created the adhoc network already). Any good ideas how that badge could > > look > > like? > > > > Shouldn't ad-hoc network icons be gray if empty/inactive and colored by the > creator's Sugar Learner colors once created? > > If the creator's beacon stops, then subsequent beaconer's colors might be > adopted (if you want to extract that information)[1]. Although, the color > change may be the source of some confusion. why would anyone care who "created" an ad-hoc network? by their nature (from a user's perspective) they're anonymous, especially in this case, where their names (as i understand it) are pre-configured. paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Frederick Grose wrote: > Shouldn't ad-hoc network icons be gray if empty/inactive +1, with the following qualifier: there's a small risk that it may get confusing with our convention of gray-is-not-a-search-result > and colored by the > creator's Sugar Learner colors once created? As Paul points out, ad-hoc networking infrastructure won't care (nor tell) who's the creator, and that's a feature: if the "creator" walks away/shutsdown/runs our of battery, the "network" keeps working. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > frederick wrote: > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Simon Schampijer >wrote: > > > > > On 04/27/2010 08:54 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > What is missing is a badge to indicate if the network is active (someone > has > > > created the adhoc network already). Any good ideas how that badge > could look > > > like? > > > > > > > Shouldn't ad-hoc network icons be gray if empty/inactive and colored by > the > > creator's Sugar Learner colors once created? > > > > If the creator's beacon stops, then subsequent beaconer's colors might > be > > adopted (if you want to extract that information)[1]. Although, the > color > > change may be the source of some confusion. > > why would anyone care who "created" an ad-hoc network? by their > nature (from a user's perspective) they're anonymous, especially in > this case, where their names (as i understand it) are pre-configured. Perhaps I'm confused by the situation? With XO-1 mesh networks, the Neighborhood view would show 3 mesh network icons, all in the Sugar learner's color, plus any access points in various colors. One would have to hover over a network to see its channel or name. The 3 mesh networks could not be distinguished by passive observation. Once a populated network is joined, Sugar learners could see any Neighborhood Activities and associated learners and proceed to participate. It is proposed that the ad-hoc network icons distinguish themselves in 2 ways. First, are they populated? This allows one to join a populated network versus an empty one, or one where you are the only member. Second, of multiple networks (Neighborhoods), which might I want to join? Here, the color of the creator or successor is a hint, but a Neighborhood name would be best. This relates to Simon's second question. If they all have the same name, that is less useful than if the creator or a successor could supply a useful name. --Fred ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/03/2010 09:18 PM, Frederick Grose wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > >> frederick wrote: >> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Simon Schampijer>> wrote: >> > >> > > On 04/27/2010 08:54 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: >> > > >> > >> ... >> > > >> > >> > What is missing is a badge to indicate if the network is active (someone >> has >> > > created the adhoc network already). Any good ideas how that badge >> could look >> > > like? >> > > >> > >> > Shouldn't ad-hoc network icons be gray if empty/inactive and colored by >> the >> > creator's Sugar Learner colors once created? >> > >> > If the creator's beacon stops, then subsequent beaconer's colors might >> be >> > adopted (if you want to extract that information)[1]. Although, the >> color >> > change may be the source of some confusion. >> >> why would anyone care who "created" an ad-hoc network? by their >> nature (from a user's perspective) they're anonymous, especially in >> this case, where their names (as i understand it) are pre-configured. > > > Perhaps I'm confused by the situation? > > With XO-1 mesh networks, the Neighborhood view would show 3 mesh network > icons, all in the Sugar learner's color, plus any access points in various > colors. One would have to hover over a network to see its channel or name. > The 3 mesh networks could not be distinguished by passive observation. > Once a populated network is joined, Sugar learners could see any > Neighborhood Activities and associated learners and proceed to participate. > > It is proposed that the ad-hoc network icons distinguish themselves in 2 > ways. > > First, are they populated? This allows one to join a populated network > versus an empty one, or one where you are the only member. > > Second, of multiple networks (Neighborhoods), which might I want to join? > Here, the color of the creator or successor is a hint, but a Neighborhood > name would be best. This relates to Simon's second question. If they all > have the same name, that is less useful than if the creator or a successor > could supply a useful name. > > --Fred I compare the adhoc networks with a channel. So nobody owns (create it, at least not visible to the user). Those channels are always present, just a question if anyone is listening or not and if I tune in and listen. We show a different icon when we are connected, on which channel we are listening. The badge I talked about in the mail would indicate someone is already listening on that channel. I don't think it is absolutely necessary and might add more confusion. The color, hmmm. As color is something important in the sugar user interface we have to be careful with it's use. I would go with drawing the icons in the color of the user. Definitely not use the color of the creator and transfer it to all the listeners. Regards, Simon ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > The color, hmmm. As color is something important in the sugar user alternative ideas: - single-vs-double-line for the circle's border - continuous vs dotted line for the circle's border - make the bg colour of the icon "transparent" (or equal to the bg color of the neighbourhood canvas) m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:18:12PM -0400, Frederick Grose wrote: > If the creator's beacon stops, then subsequent beaconer's colors might > be adopted (if you want to extract that information)[1]. The current beaconer identity is not available from the network stack ... and there's a chance that it would change to the second node that joins a network, and not remain the first node ... and it would shift and change as RF conditions vary ... movement of user's body, vibration of building ... ;-) -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/03/2010 10:32 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote: >> The color, hmmm. As color is something important in the sugar user > > alternative ideas: > > - single-vs-double-line for the circle's border > > - continuous vs dotted line for the circle's border > > - make the bg colour of the icon "transparent" (or equal to the bg > color of the neighbourhood canvas) > > > > m Are those alternative ideas to indicate if the network is active? To summarize the current status: there are four things we want to show in the icon: - channel number (currently done with the maya numerals) - I am connected to the network (currently done in the same way we do it for APs) - color of the icon itself (I would choose the color of the user, like we do for the mesh icons) - someone else is already connected to the network (one idea was to add a badge) Thanks, Simon ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
simon wrote: > On 05/03/2010 10:32 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Schampijer > > wrote: > >> The color, hmmm. As color is something important in the sugar user > > > > alternative ideas: > > > > - single-vs-double-line for the circle's border > > > > - continuous vs dotted line for the circle's border > > > > - make the bg colour of the icon "transparent" (or equal to the bg > > color of the neighbourhood canvas) > > > > > > > > m > > Are those alternative ideas to indicate if the network is active? > > To summarize the current status: there are four things we want to show > in the icon: > > - channel number (currently done with the maya numerals) which i think are neat, btw -- thanks to whoever thought of that. > - I am connected to the network (currently done in the same way we do it > for APs) > - color of the icon itself (I would choose the color of the user, like > we do for the mesh icons) > - someone else is already connected to the network (one idea was to add > a badge) can the last item be kept current? for example, what happens if this laptop joins an existing net, then later becomes the leader, then later becomes the only member? again, due to the anonymous nature of ad-hoc networks, i'm not sure i see the importance of this. and we don't provide similar indication for the mesh. paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Paul Fox wrote: > can the last item be kept current? for example, what happens if > this laptop joins an existing net, then later becomes the leader, > then later becomes the only member? All through that scenario, the laptop is "connected" to that adhoc so all that is visible in the neighbourhood view. To answer Simon's question -- i was proposing (dotted lines, transparent background) to signal an adhoc network that we are not connected to, and that we haven't heard a beacon for (so it's "empty") What we want to support is the moment of decision -- should i join this adhoc network to see if my friends are in it? If the icon looks "less than complete" (no bg, dotted line, "hollow" somehow...) we may be able to convey "it's empty". cheers m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/04/2010 03:09 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Paul Fox wrote: can the last item be kept current? for example, what happens if this laptop joins an existing net, then later becomes the leader, then later becomes the only member? All through that scenario, the laptop is "connected" to that adhoc so all that is visible in the neighbourhood view. To answer Simon's question -- i was proposing (dotted lines, transparent background) to signal an adhoc network that we are not connected to, and that we haven't heard a beacon for (so it's "empty") What we want to support is the moment of decision -- should i join this adhoc network to see if my friends are in it? If the icon looks "less than complete" (no bg, dotted line, "hollow" somehow...) we may be able to convey "it's empty". cheers m Hi Martin, since I am good at playing with SVGs by now I made a quick sketch. The 'dotted' version and the no bg version is attached. Code wise both is simple to do. Regards, Simon <><>___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > since I am good at playing with SVGs by now I made a quick sketch. The > 'dotted' version and the no bg version is attached. Code wise both is simple > to do. Great! they look good to me. Wouldn't know which one to choose ;-) m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > On 05/04/2010 03:09 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > >> ... > > > since I am good at playing with SVGs by now I made a quick sketch. The > 'dotted' version and the no bg version is attached. Perhaps fewer breaks and round caps on the segments... Broken gray and no background for ''empty" will aid accessibility on monochrome displays. (I don't think 'colored stroke and no fill' is in the Sugar style book, so we should perhaps avoid a perplexing inconsistency.) And what of useful names? Thanks, --Fred <>___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Frederick Grose wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > >> On 05/04/2010 03:09 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: >> >>> ... >> >> >> since I am good at playing with SVGs by now I made a quick sketch. The >> 'dotted' version and the no bg version is attached. >> > Seems my last attachment was empty. > > Perhaps fewer breaks and round caps on the segments... > > Broken gray and no background for ''empty" will aid accessibility on > monochrome displays. (I don't think 'colored stroke and no fill' is in the > Sugar style book, so we > should perhaps avoid a perplexing inconsistency.) > > And what of useful names? > > Thanks, --Fred > > > <><>___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/04/2010 05:11 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: >> since I am good at playing with SVGs by now I made a quick sketch. The >> 'dotted' version and the no bg version is attached. Code wise both is simple >> to do. > > Great! they look good to me. Wouldn't know which one to choose ;-) > > > m Ok, after a bit of thinking I would go for the 'no bg' version. With the dotted one I think users might not know instinctive what means what: dotted means there are people connected, there are none? Did we settle on the naming of the network. I was in favor of 'local network' as that mimics well the range of the network for me. James meant that this could be confused with 'localhost', if I remember correctly. 'Our network' was another option. Any good argument, or another option? Thanks, Simon ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
simon wrote: > Did we settle on the naming of the network. I was in favor of 'local > network' as that mimics well the range of the network for me. James > meant that this could be confused with 'localhost', if I remember > correctly. 'Our network' was another option. Any good argument, or > another option? surprisingly, "ad-hoc" describes them pretty well. :-) seriously, it captures that they are informal, self-managed, and probably temporary. "impromptu" carries some of the same feeling. "informal", or "casual" might work, too. it's certainly how i think of ad-hoc networks -- i.e., the opposite of "managed" or "requiring infrastructure". paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/06/2010 02:34 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > simon wrote: > > Did we settle on the naming of the network. I was in favor of 'local > > network' as that mimics well the range of the network for me. James > > meant that this could be confused with 'localhost', if I remember > > correctly. 'Our network' was another option. Any good argument, or > > another option? > > > surprisingly, "ad-hoc" describes them pretty well. :-) > seriously, it captures that they are informal, self-managed, and > probably temporary. > > "impromptu" carries some of the same feeling. > > "informal", or "casual" might work, too. it's certainly how i > think of ad-hoc networks -- i.e., the opposite of "managed" or > "requiring infrastructure". > > paul Thanks Paul for your reply. Actually, you are right, "Ad-hoc Network [channel number]" sounds good. Is "Ad-hoc" the correct way to write it? Found many different ways on the net. I have attached new patches to the ticket 9845 including the famous maya numerals icons (thanks Fred for the hint). I quite like them :) I could do rpms, too - if someone would want to test it (please mind the NM ones if you want to apply the patches by hand). Regards, Simon ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
simon wrote: > On 05/06/2010 02:34 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > > simon wrote: > > > Did we settle on the naming of the network. I was in favor of 'local > > > network' as that mimics well the range of the network for me. James > > > meant that this could be confused with 'localhost', if I remember > > > correctly. 'Our network' was another option. Any good argument, or > > > another option? > > > > > > surprisingly, "ad-hoc" describes them pretty well. :-) > > seriously, it captures that they are informal, self-managed, and > > probably temporary. > > > > "impromptu" carries some of the same feeling. > > > > "informal", or "casual" might work, too. it's certainly how i > > think of ad-hoc networks -- i.e., the opposite of "managed" or > > "requiring infrastructure". > > > > paul > > Thanks Paul for your reply. Actually, you are right, "Ad-hoc Network > [channel number]" sounds good. Is "Ad-hoc" the correct way to write it? > Found many different ways on the net. heh. i was really kind of rooting for "impromptu", myself. it sounds like a lot more fun than "ad hoc". "Come on over! We're having an ad hoc party!", just doesn't have the same ring to it. :-) ahem. i think ad hoc is really two words, and shouldn't be hyphenated. i'm sure one of our fluent latin speakers can help here. > > I have attached new patches to the ticket 9845 including the famous maya > numerals icons (thanks Fred for the hint). I quite like them :) > > I could do rpms, too - if someone would want to test it (please mind the > NM ones if you want to apply the patches by hand). > > Regards, > Simon =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/06/10 18:01, Paul Fox wrote:
> heh. i was really kind of rooting for "impromptu", myself. it
> sounds like a lot more fun than "ad hoc". "Come on over! We're
> having an ad hoc party!", just doesn't have the same ring to it. :-)
>
> ahem.
>
> i think ad hoc is really two words, and shouldn't be hyphenated.
> i'm sure one of our fluent latin speakers can help here.
Ah, Grammar! Summary: Today, "ad hoc" is definitely correct and
"ad-hoc" depends on how much of a stickler is the grammarian you ask.
The Latin phrase is indeed two words. Also, Latin grew up at a time
when hyphens didn't exist either. Also, we're using "ad hoc" as an
*English* adjective; both with and without hyphen are used; either way
is, by the rules of English grammar, two words. For most adjectives in
this situation we would use a hyphen: consider the ambiguity of
"hot pink bunnies"
do we mean "hot-pink bunnies, the brightly colored creatures that
decorated the pages of Muse magazine instead of cats-vs.-dogs."
("hot-pink" applies to "bunnies")
or
"hot, pink bunnies ran limply from the sweltering heat of the fire."
("hot" applies to bunnies, "pink" applies to bunnies, but "hot" does not
apply to "pink" or vice versa)
The only reason "ad hoc" can get away with not having a hyphen is
because it's a well-known phrase that cannot be split up. (You can't
have an "ad network" or a "hoc network" -- except if "ad" is short for
"advertising" which is an entirely different word!) In fact, the
without-hyphen version is rather more standard. I personally think it
doesn't really matter. A book publisher would make us use "ad hoc", but
we're not in that business of producing books, marketed to people who
read lots of prose, that will of necessity sit on shelves unmodified for
decades. Probably a few decades ago "ad-hoc" was less popular, and a
century from now who knows where we'll be, but that's where we are now.
however, I also rather prefer "impromptu" or "informal"! One site
suggested "spontaneous" also. Unless we're trying to be consistent with
established English usage, in which case we might want to choose "ad hoc
networks" (assuming these networks really are the same concept as the
well-known term "ad hoc networks", and not something that's much more
specific/idiosyncratic -- judging by [1] etc, I think it's pretty close
to that concept)
[1] http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-December/026831.html
-Isaac
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/07/2010 05:08 AM, Isaac Dupree wrote:
On 05/06/10 18:01, Paul Fox wrote:
heh. i was really kind of rooting for "impromptu", myself. it
sounds like a lot more fun than "ad hoc". "Come on over! We're
having an ad hoc party!", just doesn't have the same ring to it. :-)
ahem.
i think ad hoc is really two words, and shouldn't be hyphenated.
i'm sure one of our fluent latin speakers can help here.
Ah, Grammar! Summary: Today, "ad hoc" is definitely correct and
"ad-hoc" depends on how much of a stickler is the grammarian you ask.
The Latin phrase is indeed two words. Also, Latin grew up at a time
when hyphens didn't exist either. Also, we're using "ad hoc" as an
*English* adjective; both with and without hyphen are used; either way
is, by the rules of English grammar, two words. For most adjectives in
this situation we would use a hyphen: consider the ambiguity of
"hot pink bunnies"
do we mean "hot-pink bunnies, the brightly colored creatures that
decorated the pages of Muse magazine instead of cats-vs.-dogs."
("hot-pink" applies to "bunnies")
or
"hot, pink bunnies ran limply from the sweltering heat of the fire."
("hot" applies to bunnies, "pink" applies to bunnies, but "hot" does not
apply to "pink" or vice versa)
The only reason "ad hoc" can get away with not having a hyphen is
because it's a well-known phrase that cannot be split up. (You can't
have an "ad network" or a "hoc network" -- except if "ad" is short for
"advertising" which is an entirely different word!) In fact, the
without-hyphen version is rather more standard. I personally think it
doesn't really matter. A book publisher would make us use "ad hoc", but
we're not in that business of producing books, marketed to people who
read lots of prose, that will of necessity sit on shelves unmodified for
decades. Probably a few decades ago "ad-hoc" was less popular, and a
century from now who knows where we'll be, but that's where we are now.
however, I also rather prefer "impromptu" or "informal"! One site
suggested "spontaneous" also. Unless we're trying to be consistent with
established English usage, in which case we might want to choose "ad hoc
networks" (assuming these networks really are the same concept as the
well-known term "ad hoc networks", and not something that's much more
specific/idiosyncratic -- judging by [1] etc, I think it's pretty close
to that concept)
[1] http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-December/026831.html
-Isaac
Thanks Isaac, for the detailed explanation :) I read it as if 'ad hoc'
would be a good choice.
I actually would go for 'ad hoc network' rather then 'informal network'
as we have named the mesh one 'mesh network'. Using here the rather
technical term too, would be best in terms of consistency. If someone
feels strong the other way, please say so now, as I want to settle on it.
Same for the icons, I would go for the maya numerals, and use the bg
color as an indicator if a network is 'active' or not, if there is more
than 1 person already listening on it. Btw, due to the nature of adhoc
networks they don't disappear right after you disconnect from them (no
listener left), this takes a while, means: if I connect on channel 1,
and then connect on channel 6 for others channel 1 will appear to be
still 'active' for a while.
Upstream: How does feel upstream about changing the way we handle ad hoc
networks to the model proposed here? (three icons in the neighborhood
view - one per channel, remove the option from the network frame
device). Tomeu, you as the submitter of the ad hoc feature, what do you
think? Attached is another screenshot to visualize it.
Thanks,
Simon
<>___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > Thanks Isaac, for the detailed explanation :) ... Great to see this coming to closure. One question I have; with these patches... 1 - If Sugar sees no "known" network, and no "populated" ad hoc network, can we automate the picking of an adhoc network after a brief timeout (giving enough time to listen to beacons)? Default to ad hoc 1? 2 - If Sugar sees no known network, and a populated ad hoc network, can it auto associate? Maybe codepath #1 can have a random wait to minimise the "race condition" within a bunch of XOs started or awoken at the same time? So one is clearly early, sets up things in ch 1 for others to join...? The goal here is that if you start a bunch of XOs "under a tree" (or at least "not under an AP" :-) ), they auto-network together. Specially important for the youngest of our users... cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On 05/07/2010 10:04 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote: >> Thanks Isaac, for the detailed explanation :) > > ... > > Great to see this coming to closure. One question I have; with these > patches... > > 1 - If Sugar sees no "known" network, and no "populated" ad hoc > network, can we automate the picking of an adhoc network after a brief > timeout (giving enough time to listen to beacons)? Default to ad hoc > 1? > > 2 - If Sugar sees no known network, and a populated ad hoc network, > can it auto associate? > > Maybe codepath #1 can have a random wait to minimise the "race > condition" within a bunch of XOs started or awoken at the same time? > So one is clearly early, sets up things in ch 1 for others to join...? > > The goal here is that if you start a bunch of XOs "under a tree" (or > at least "not under an AP" :-) ), they auto-network together. > Specially important for the youngest of our users... > > cheers, > > > > m Ok, both points sound like a sane thing to do from a user point of view. I will have a look how long it takes for an adhoc network to populate. From previous experiences it can take quite long, but I will do concrete testing and see if it is sanely doable. Regards, Simon ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Default ad-hoc networks
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 04:04:15PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote: 1 - If Sugar sees no "known" network, and no "populated" ad hoc network, can we automate the picking of an adhoc network after a brief timeout (giving enough time to listen to beacons)? Default to ad hoc 1? 2 - If Sugar sees no known network, and a populated ad hoc network, can it auto associate? These are good ideas, though we should make sure it doesn't make regular APs more cumbersome to use, like the Mesh support currently does [1]. In particular, it should a) only kick in after we are sufficiently sure there are no known APs to connect to (requires > 1 scanning interval) and b) switch from empty ad-hoc to known AP as soon as one becomes available. [1] https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1883 CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
