Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > On 11/24/2010 04:12 PM, Fabio Mancinelli wrote: > >> Hi Caty, >> >> a mail to share my vision about the User Status feature. >> >> The main idea is to have a mechanism for users to broadcast messages >> concerning their activities. >> The key use cases for this are: >> >> 1) Fast communication between enterprise members which can replace IMs >> and mails with user status >> 1.1) Communicate what you are working on >> > > Obvious, +1. > > >> 1.2) Quick question answering and feedback gathering >> > > You mean something like: > > BigBoss says: > How do we get through the crisis? > Jimmy says: > @BigBoss reduce costs! > Mike says: > @BigBoss sell more! > > And: > > Jimmy says: > @Timmy where can I get a W80 form? > Timmy says: > @Jimmy room 404 > > >> 1.3) Interesting material dissemination >> > > You mean link sharing? > > >> 2) Focused discussions about a given topic >> > > I'm not sure this is the best way to communicate. It might work if it > behaves a bit like instant messaging, with updates being refreshed in > real time. Also, for it to make sense as a discussion, it should be > threaded. So this starts to look like Google Wave, which somehow failed. > It might work in an intranet, but still it would diverge too much from a > simple status update, and I'm not sure how it can be integrated nicely > inside the current Activity UI (nor the implementation, but that's not > critical). > > >> 3) Fast communication with external clients to keep them up-to-date >> > > I'm not sure I get this. Isn't an *intra*net supposed to be internal, > inaccessible to external parties? > > Do you mean closed group messages, visible only in a given space? > > >> In order to realize these use cases we need something that resembles >> to Facebook's Wall or, if we look at more enterprise oriented >> products, to SalesForce chatter (http://www.salesforce.com/chatter) >> > > This is getting too far from the initial ideas. It was supposed to be > integrated in the recent activity, as little user messages mixed among > wiki activity. Now it looks like the main goal is user communication, > with wiki activity on the second place. Going the Chatter way would > imply many changes in the ActivityStream implementation, the > {{activity}} macro, and the Recent Activity UI. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't try to go there, I'm only asking if we want > to do it as the "User Statuses" sub-feature inside the Activity feature. > > >> In particular: >> >> 1) The feature should be implemented as an internal subsystem that >> takes advantage of the Wiki underlying model for exposing information >> > > That's always the case. > > >> 1.1) User status can contain reference to Wiki entities (i.e., page, >> attachments, comments) and external links. As Jerome said in a >> previous email, this is key. An autocompletion mechanism could help >> making this feature more usable. >> > > The full wiki syntax might be available, which includes links to > documents/attachment. If we do that, then should the WYSIWYG be > displayed as well? > > >> 1.2) I am not sure that we need to provide an upload mechanism to >> associate an artifact to a user status. Linking an attachment in a >> Wiki page is sufficient in my opinion. >> > > +1 for links to existing data only. We could provide a "notify this" > checkbox in the edit/upload UI. > > >> 2) It should be possible to define one or more "neighborhoods", i.e., >> people that will receive our status updates >> > > We could have activities for a space, and activities for a group. This > means that in the group UI we could integrate a "say something" widget. > > Another idea is a panel which allows you to specify where to post the > update: global (default), current space, specific space (with suggest), > group of users (with suggest), specific user (with suggest). > > My fear is that the UI will be too complex, which increases the > likelihood of users abandoning their update. If something takes too much > to accomplish, or there are too many knobs to tinker with, then people > will avoid that. > > >> 2.1) This is something that is more powerful wrt to what we have in >> Facebook because it would allow us to create different social-graphs >> that can be targeted when a user status is updated >> >> 3) It should be possible to comment on a status update (e.g., quick >> question answering and feedback gathering use case) >> > > Is a simple "reply to this" enough? > > >> 4) The user status are not tweets... I think that the number of >> character should be limited to a reasonable high threshold (e.g., >> 2048) >> > > The current activity stream allows for 2000 characters (which usually is > rounded to something more), so this should be OK. > > >> 5) User statuses should be visible only to the users belonging to the >> "neighborhood" targeted by the status >> > > This can be done at the UI level, but it's going to be hard to protect > it at the API level. We can do it if we change the activitystream plugin > to expose more high level methods, like getEventsForCurrentSpace and > getEventsForCurrentGroup, while keeping the generic methods protected > (as they are now). I don't like this, since it introduces details about > the high-level application inside the low-level platform. > > >> 6) User statuses could be displayed using an activity stream in the >> user's profile page and also on the home activity stream >> 6.1) The user statuses should also appear in the Workspace home pages. >> In this case they are configured to display the statuses of the >> "neighborhood" implicitly defined by all the members of the workspace. >> >> Feedback is welcome. >> >> > > So, my two main questions: > > 1. Do we want to make the "User Statuses" this complex? Or do we > separate into a simple "User Statuses" and a complex > facebook/chatter/wave like application? >
I find this related with synchronous vs asynchronous communication. Sometimes I think that it should be great to have a chat-like application within XWiki. That way, users teaming around XWiki won't need any other tool to establish a synchronous communication about a work going on within XWiki or about any other topic they decide. For instance, does it make sense to create such a service within XWiki to allow devs use it instead of using Skype or IRC channels? Is it a matter of decision to use this external applications or it is a matter of not having man/woman power to create such an application within XWiki? I see User Statuses as an advanced asynchronous communication tool within the XWiki environment. Thus, I'm more for splitting the applications are having a simple "User Statuses" and a complex synchronous communication system. Thanks! > 2. What are the possible targets of a message? > > 2.1 Only neighborhoods == XWiki Groups and users > - group:XWiki.XWikiAllGroup > - group:XWiki.R&DGroup > - user:XWiki.johndoe > 2.2 Only Wiki, space or page > 2.3 Entity references which can target different things, like: > - somewiki > - somewiki:somespace > - somewiki:somespace.somepage > - somewiki:XWiki.somegroup#XWiki.XWikiGroup > - somewiki:XWiki.someuser#XWiki.XWikiUsers > I do prefer 2.3 option. I'm thinking about XWiki pages representing resources, a meeting room, for instance. I would like to broadcast messages to this page on its own and/or an user or one/several groups users concerned by them. > >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) >> <vali...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:19, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) >>> <vali...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> There are some features that need to be investigated during the XE 2.7 >>>> timeframe in order to be able to integrate them in XE 3.0. >>>> One of them is **User Statuses** and a main definition for it is: "On top >>>> of activity >>>> stream<http://code.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Macros/ActivityMacro>, >>>> create a User status& twitter integration feature" >>>> >>>> The question is what should we integrate and cover if we want to have user >>>> statuses in XE. >>>> In order to deploy mockups I need to have some clear requirements and uses >>>> cases. >>>> I create some pages on incubator that will gather this mail discussions at: >>>> Requirements: >>>> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/UserStatusRequirements >>>> Use Cases: >>>> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/UserStatusUseCases >>>> >>>> While discussing Activity Stream design we had some design scraps for the >>>> status casting part >>>> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/UserStatusScrap >>>> >>>> Please share your vision. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Some questions I have: >>> - is it worth it to make our own status casting or can we use directly the >>> Twitter API? >>> -- do we plan to integrate other services beside Twitter in the future? >>> -- if we have our own service, do we plan to display Twitter logo to >>> identify Twitter entries? >>> - what are the actions other users can make on a user status? >>> -- They can comment/respond to it? right away or in the status page? >>> -- Can they like it? >>> -- Can they attach something to it? >>> - what actions should the casting box have? >>> -- The user can enter just characters? >>> -- How many chars? >>> -- Can he upload a file? >>> - what is the visibility of user statuses? >>> -- are they available for anyone with view/edit right? >>> - what is the location where we display the status? >>> -- Home Activity Stream? >>> -- User Profile? >>> -- special gadget/macro? >>> -- future: his vcard? >>> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/AvatarsProposal/vcard.png >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Caty >>> > > > -- Ricardo RodrÃguez CTO eBioTIC. Life Sciences, Data Modeling and Information Management Systems _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
