|
|
Post by golbeck on Jan 1, 2013 13:32:20 GMT -5
Post your Topic 9 Homework (google wave) homework here
|
|
|
|
Post by fionajardine on Jan 9, 2013 22:42:29 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in librariesI think that there would have been a few library applications for Wave. One application could be as a glorified discussion group - for staff and/or patrons. There were librarian and library waves that were publicly accessible. The collaboration ability within Wave meant that ideas could be shared and corrected. A reference question could be answered by several librarians without creating multiple emails, or different parts of a question could be discussed separately. Another application of Wave was creation of a robot that looked up citations ( blogs.nature.com/nascent/2009/07/igor_a_google_wave_robot_to_ma.html), which is a library type application. However, I don't see any of these applications as being anything revolutionary. Existing tools, with which we are already familiar, already do a sufficient job at these tasks. 2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?The first problem with Wave was that it tried to do too many things and no one really understood what it was for. Some people thought it was a social networking tool, others a collaboration tool (much like the capabilities of Google Docs Drive), others a real time messaging tool. I think, as far as usability of the user interface goes, the problem with Wave was its learnability. While it might have been quicker for some users once they knew the UI, the UI was so feature rich that only a few users really took advantage of all the features. I'm sure many just used one feature, such as real time messaging or collaboration, in which case simpler, specific task (~less buggy) tools would probably do the job just as well, if not better.
|
|
|
|
Post by mleist on Jan 16, 2013 21:06:27 GMT -5
1. Virtual reference would have been a great potential application of the Google Wave concept in libraries. Not only would patrons have easier and faster access to librarians, but librarians would have easier and faster access to other librarians. Essentially, a librarian could create a web or network of reference resources from all over the world without having to use multiple platforms or programs--assuming of course that other librarians were also using Google Wave. If patrons and librarians consistently used something like Google Wave to transmit information, then the potential power in exchanging information would be pretty massive. Instead of scattered networks and reference resources, information would be more streamlined.
2. The interface is very complicated for the average user without having any huge benefit. The learnability of Google Wave would be incredibly time-consuming. The interface is cluttered, which as a user does not meet my personal user preference. Having never seen or heard of Google Wave before this class, I was pretty astonished when I did see the Google Wave interface for the first time. I was immediately turned off by the number of boxes on the screen even though they were all boxes that looked familiar to me from other applications (email, chat, etc.). My brain immediately wanted to close windows or separate them in some way--it was information overload. As someone who prefers being able to review and edit my writing, I didn’t really like that typing was done in real time, but again, that’s user preference. Ultimately, I think Google Wave failed because it did a lot of things people could already do, but in a lot more complicated ways. It was memorable to users for the wrong reasons and they didn't want to learn how to use it. The usability was poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by mleist on Jan 16, 2013 21:14:13 GMT -5
"The first problem with Wave was that it tried to do too many things and no one really understood what it was for."
This statement really sums up my thoughts on Google Wave. Even though I could understand and appreciate the different elements that made up Google Wave, I was not able to grasp a clear and unified vision of what it was meant to be. In trying to be everything, it didn't really do anything all that extraordinarily well. Perhaps if the mission or purpose of Google Wave had been made more apparently clear, or a specific audience or setting targeted at the beginning, then Google Wave would have been adopted by a smaller user base first and then eventually would have gained larger appeal. But instead it just seemed disjointed. In the absence of a clear vision understood by its users, it would have been very difficult for Google Wave to be successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by susanhikerbiker on Jan 17, 2013 12:40:50 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries.
I have never worked in a library and I make very infrequent use of them. (My interest is law librarianship; I anticipate doing legal research for professors/professionals.) To answer this question, I am going to extrapolate from my experience as a public high school teacher. I went back to the classroom after being out of it for 12 years in 2010. I was dismayed by the havoc caused by Facebook at our school. Students were posting things that were offensive to other students and as a result administrators' time was getting used up to put out Facebook fires. I could see Wave causing fires in a public library that serves the general public. In a special library, my question would be why? Why would a specialist need all these features? Having been a lawyer and worked in a culture heavily characterized by "time-is-money" I tend to weigh the advantages of learning new technologies against the cost. As a lawyer-user in a special library, I would be weighing the advantages of taking the time to learn all the features of Wave against my need to bill hours. I don't think I would be attracted to Wave as a lawyer-user. Perhaps in a different type of special library, Wave would be attractive to users. Maybe for librarians who have great need to work collaboratively on projects Wave would be useful.
2. What explanations can you give for why google Wave failed?
I think when learning new ways of doing things on the computer, steps have to be somewhat small so the user does not get overwhelmed. Perhaps google Wave required too many big steps too fast for the majority of users. Perhaps there was not much of an audience who at this time has need for all the features offered by google Wave. In time, as users become more sophisticated as a whole and user needs evolve, google Wave may find its place with consumers.
|
|
|
|
Post by susanhikerbiker on Jan 17, 2013 12:47:34 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in librariesI think that there would have been a few library applications for Wave. One application could be as a glorified discussion group - for staff and/or patrons. There were librarian and library waves that were publicly accessible. The collaboration ability within Wave meant that ideas could be shared and corrected. A reference question could be answered by several librarians without creating multiple emails, or different parts of a question could be discussed separately. Another application of Wave was creation of a robot that looked up citations ( blogs.nature.com/nascent/2009/07/igor_a_google_wave_robot_to_ma.html), which is a library type application. However, I don't see any of these applications as being anything revolutionary. Existing tools, with which we are already familiar, already do a sufficient job at these tasks. 2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?The first problem with Wave was that it tried to do too many things and no one really understood what it was for. Some people thought it was a social networking tool, others a collaboration tool (much like the capabilities of Google Docs Drive), others a real time messaging tool. I think, as far as usability of the user interface goes, the problem with Wave was its learnability. While it might have been quicker for some users once they knew the UI, the UI was so feature rich that only a few users really took advantage of all the features. I'm sure many just used one feature, such as real time messaging or collaboration, in which case simpler, specific task (~less buggy) tools would probably do the job just as well, if not better. I think you understood the language of this presentation a lot more than I did! I agree much with your points in question #2. I think we had similar ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by susanhikerbiker on Jan 17, 2013 12:55:42 GMT -5
1. Virtual reference would have been a great potential application of the Google Wave concept in libraries. Not only would patrons have easier and faster access to librarians, but librarians would have easier and faster access to other librarians. Essentially, a librarian could create a web or network of reference resources from all over the world without having to use multiple platforms or programs--assuming of course that other librarians were also using Google Wave. If patrons and librarians consistently used something like Google Wave to transmit information, then the potential power in exchanging information would be pretty massive. Instead of scattered networks and reference resources, information would be more streamlined. You opened my mind about the possibility of using Google Wave as a reference librarian. The presentation made me reflect on my user preferences. I too wanted to close the screens. At one point in the presentation, there were FOUR screens opened! The editing feature puzzled me. Why would I want to participate in editing a document at the same time others are editing it? Also, why do I need to see other users type in real time? (Doesn't this slow the reading process?) That said, there was much attractive to me about Google Wave . . . I just need the attractions broken down differently for me to make use of them. 2. The interface is very complicated for the average user without having any huge benefit. The learnability of Google Wave would be incredibly time-consuming. The interface is cluttered, which as a user does not meet my personal user preference. Having never seen or heard of Google Wave before this class, I was pretty astonished when I did see the Google Wave interface for the first time. I was immediately turned off by the number of boxes on the screen even though they were all boxes that looked familiar to me from other applications (email, chat, etc.). My brain immediately wanted to close windows or separate them in some way--it was information overload. As someone who prefers being able to review and edit my writing, I didn’t really like that typing was done in real time, but again, that’s user preference. Ultimately, I think Google Wave failed because it did a lot of things people could already do, but in a lot more complicated ways. It was memorable to users for the wrong reasons and they didn't want to learn how to use it. The usability was poor. |
|
|
|
Post by stuszynski on Jan 17, 2013 16:08:41 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries
I don't actually think Wave had much potential for library use unless it had become a spectacular success in general first, and it wasn't developed well enough to do that. Librarians started using virtual chats and instant messaging *after* they became well-known. The public got used to those technologies (to a degree) and was able to adapt to them in a library.
Librarians have enough on our hands trying to help patrons use the library as it exists. Training patrons to use a new technology like Wave, which as others have pointed out had a terrible interface, would have been too much to ask of already overworked librarians. A user who has dealt with virtual chats in other spaces can figure out how to chat with a virtual librarian, but those skills have to be present in the population before they are useful to apply to libraries.
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?
In addition to the terrible interface, it didn't offer anything really new. Most of what you could do in Wave was stuff that you could already do with other existing software, including a bunch of Google tech. If they had integrated Google Docs and Gchat and all that into Wave to make it kind of a one-stop-shop for all those existing Google services to work together, that might've been different. That's what I remember people expecting when this launched, then we found out that it didn't work that way.
Google needs to get out of the social network business. No matter what they try, people think of them as a source of information and tools, not a place to talk to other people.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuszynski on Jan 17, 2013 16:11:34 GMT -5
However, I don't see any of these applications as being anything revolutionary. Existing tools, with which we are already familiar, already do a sufficient job at these tasks. I agree with this. Most of Wave's abilities were things other applications could already do, but it also didn't leverage Google's existing applications very well. In some ways having to use different tools to do different things with different people can be a drag, but it also allows us to keep ourselves separate. I will never forward an inappropriate link to my Mother from my Hotmail account, and I will never start talking to someone on AIM about a work colleague, because my identity has been segregated over these applications to help me keep parts of my life in order. |
|
|
|
Post by stuszynski on Jan 17, 2013 16:14:02 GMT -5
My brain immediately wanted to close windows or separate them in some way--it was information overload. As someone who prefers being able to review and edit my writing, I didn’t really like that typing was done in real time, but again, that’s user preference. I don't know, I don't think I know anyone who wants to be seen typing live! My friends and I always joke that in chat "spelling doesn't count" and then we compulsively send additional messages if we spell something wrong just to prove we can spell it correctly. I don't even understand the point of being able to see someone else typing. Is it really that hard to wait until they click "send" or hit enter on a chat message? The interface shocked me when I first saw it too. Google's rather well known for their design simplicity and that interface was just a hot mess. |
|
|
|
Post by jian12 on Jan 19, 2013 17:12:56 GMT -5
Google Wave is a very cool design! The designers embedded so many functions in one thing so the users don’t have to switch around to complete different tasks, such as Skype for instant messaging and Wiki for editing files. It fits one of the important needs in libraries—time-saving. Since library is mainly a place for study and research, what users need is a way for efficient communications. With Google Wave, users are able to discuss problems (instant chatting), demonstrate their thoughts (through sharing documents and pictures), and work together (through many ways) on one interface.
Another advantage of Google Wave in libraries is that there is not an existing dominant library communication system, which means that Wave has the potential to take over the market. I believe libraries would like to adopt such a convenient system for customer user as well as management.
In my opinion, the main reason why Google Wave failed was that people had already built up different social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Skype, and so on. Now we have specific places to share what we are doing in different ways, chatting, sharing pictures, updating events, posting blogs and feelings, etc. I personally feel a little tired of maintaining all of them already, and I cannot imagine another social network for people to get crazy about. As long as we can share any information we want in the existing social networks, why bother to start a new one? If the market had not been taken by other designs, it might be a different story.
My other concern is its learnability. Getting to know all functions on one thing, let’s say blogging, is already a challenge at first. You have to figure out how to make the blog pretty, how to post pictures on blogs, and so on. Not to mention embedding all the possible functions on one page. Users may appreciate the convenience Google Wave provides, however, could be very frustrating learning how to use it at the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by jian12 on Jan 19, 2013 17:19:53 GMT -5
I cannot agree more with your opinion that "Google needs to get out of the social network business. " And it's a very interesting point. Many people probably are already getting tired of posting the same things on both Facebook and Twitter... All kinds of social networks that I can imagine have been well developed. I don't think any other social network would be successful unless they have something "new" to create. That's why I think Google Circle won't last long either... Read more: lbsc690.boards.net/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=3&page=1#ixzz2ISisqPHe" 1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries I don't actually think Wave had much potential for library use unless it had become a spectacular success in general first, and it wasn't developed well enough to do that. Librarians started using virtual chats and instant messaging *after* they became well-known. The public got used to those technologies (to a degree) and was able to adapt to them in a library. Librarians have enough on our hands trying to help patrons use the library as it exists. Training patrons to use a new technology like Wave, which as others have pointed out had a terrible interface, would have been too much to ask of already overworked librarians. A user who has dealt with virtual chats in other spaces can figure out how to chat with a virtual librarian, but those skills have to be present in the population before they are useful to apply to libraries. 2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed? In addition to the terrible interface, it didn't offer anything really new. Most of what you could do in Wave was stuff that you could already do with other existing software, including a bunch of Google tech. If they had integrated Google Docs and Gchat and all that into Wave to make it kind of a one-stop-shop for all those existing Google services to work together, that might've been different. That's what I remember people expecting when this launched, then we found out that it didn't work that way. Google needs to get out of the social network business. No matter what they try, people think of them as a source of information and tools, not a place to talk to other people. |
|
|
|
Post by jian12 on Jan 19, 2013 17:24:54 GMT -5
You are right about our needs. Why would we need all those features? Why would we have them on one interface? For some of the functions, I would probably never need it in my life. Google's creativity is apparently too advanced to meet real needs:) 1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries. I have never worked in a library and I make very infrequent use of them. (My interest is law librarianship; I anticipate doing legal research for professors/professionals.) To answer this question, I am going to extrapolate from my experience as a public high school teacher. I went back to the classroom after being out of it for 12 years in 2010. I was dismayed by the havoc caused by Facebook at our school. Students were posting things that were offensive to other students and as a result administrators' time was getting used up to put out Facebook fires. I could see Wave causing fires in a public library that serves the general public. In a special library, my question would be why? Why would a specialist need all these features? Having been a lawyer and worked in a culture heavily characterized by "time-is-money" I tend to weigh the advantages of learning new technologies against the cost. As a lawyer-user in a special library, I would be weighing the advantages of taking the time to learn all the features of Wave against my need to bill hours. I don't think I would be attracted to Wave as a lawyer-user. Perhaps in a different type of special library, Wave would be attractive to users. Maybe for librarians who have great need to work collaboratively on projects Wave would be useful. 2. What explanations can you give for why google Wave failed? I think when learning new ways of doing things on the computer, steps have to be somewhat small so the user does not get overwhelmed. Perhaps google Wave required too many big steps too fast for the majority of users. Perhaps there was not much of an audience who at this time has need for all the features offered by google Wave. In time, as users become more sophisticated as a whole and user needs evolve, google Wave may find its place with consumers. |
|
|
|
Post by kwhite18 on Jan 20, 2013 10:40:43 GMT -5
1. I think that Google Wave would've been great for libraries when used with reference and perhaps program forums. It would make virtual reference extremely interactive and potentially instantaneous. In terms of a "Chat" function, it would obviously allow for instant communication between the librarian and the patron. The librarian would be able to conduct the reference interview and link them to resources. I think using it in programming forums, especially for young adult programs, would have been useful and engaging. It would give the participants a place to talk about the event, share photos, etc.
2. Although I think there were some cool features (I really liked the 'Playback' function), it seems like the product offers so much, that it would be difficulty to learn how to use the product. There are so many tools available, each requiring the user to click a different button or change a setting. The time it would take me to reply to everyone in the wave, but turn off the text preview, I could have just sent a regular email- or if I saw the people were online- GChat them. Because of all of the settings and possible functions, I think it would be very easy to mess things up- sending a message to someone you didn't mean to or sending all the messages along with the photos. It seems like wave takes all of the Google tools that already exist (email, chat, docs, g+) and scrambles them into one bulky program. It's just so much for one program. In terms of usability, I don't think it's learnable, and because it's open sourced and was in development, not memorable, and the complexity of the interface makes it confusing. I think it does do a lot for user preference though!
|
|
|
|
Post by kwhite18 on Jan 20, 2013 10:46:31 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in librariesI think that there would have been a few library applications for Wave. One application could be as a glorified discussion group - for staff and/or patrons. There were librarian and library waves that were publicly accessible. The collaboration ability within Wave meant that ideas could be shared and corrected. A reference question could be answered by several librarians without creating multiple emails, or different parts of a question could be discussed separately. Another application of Wave was creation of a robot that looked up citations ( blogs.nature.com/nascent/2009/07/igor_a_google_wave_robot_to_ma.html), which is a library type application. However, I don't see any of these applications as being anything revolutionary. Existing tools, with which we are already familiar, already do a sufficient job at these tasks. 2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?The first problem with Wave was that it tried to do too many things and no one really understood what it was for. Some people thought it was a social networking tool, others a collaboration tool (much like the capabilities of Google Docs Drive), others a real time messaging tool. I think, as far as usability of the user interface goes, the problem with Wave was its learnability. While it might have been quicker for some users once they knew the UI, the UI was so feature rich that only a few users really took advantage of all the features. I'm sure many just used one feature, such as real time messaging or collaboration, in which case simpler, specific task (~less buggy) tools would probably do the job just as well, if not better. I completely agree with what you said about everyone using the product for different reasons, making it hard to market to a general audience. With everyone viewing Google Wave as a different type of product, it would be hard to build a consensus as to the point and reason for the product- other than to do everything that could ever be done. Their execution was clunky and overwhelming. |
|
