|
|
Post by kwhite18 on Jan 20, 2013 10:52:05 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. I discussed something similar in terms to virtual reference in my post, however I didn't think about wave as a tool to connect librarians, experts, and resources. I considered it more in terms of helping the user- but you seem to look at it as a way for librarians and information professionals to share resources and have conversations. I think that would have been an extremely useful tool, especially if a librarian got a question they didn't know much about, or couldn't find a good resource- if they had a connection available they could reach out via wave and collaborate. |
|
|
|
Post by fionajardine on Jan 20, 2013 22:58:15 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. I think this is a really good point. The fact that you can add anyone to a Wave without their consent (which reminds me of Facebook and being added to groups without my consent...) means not only a whole bunch of potential spam, but also opens the door for bullying and arguments, both inside and outside of library settings. |
|
|
|
Post by fionajardine on Jan 20, 2013 23:03:54 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"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. I agree with both of you here. I think google needs to get out of the social network business. I just don't see what they are doing as anything more than what already exists. Maybe I just don't like social networks (I am not a huge fan of Facebook and use it because I feel I have to given that the students I work with use it as their main communication tool. I do love twitter though...). I think this harks back to Wave not having created anything substantively new, but just pushed a whole bunch of things together. Sometimes separation of tools is a good thing! I don't need, nor want, one thing to do EVERYTHING - usually it does nothing well. And I think that sums up Wave. |
|
|
|
Post by ewrenn on Jan 21, 2013 11:55:23 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries
Wave’s extensions had the most promise for libraries specifically for librarians trying to engage patrons through Web 2.0 applications. Unifying blog and twitter posting would have provided librarians with a single location to update patrons/followers with information. The benefits primarily are related to social media. Instead of editing a blog, a twitter account, and a Facebook page, a librarian appears to be able to post library updates in one location.
Second, libraries consistently are offering virtual ask-a-librarian reference interviews. Since Google built Wave to be an open, federated system librarians could have developed extensions to use Wave in the place of expensive ask-a-librarian software. This would require patrons either: having their own Wave-like account, visiting the library’s blog, or interacting with the library through twitter.
The actual product could have improved workflow as it would have at any company. Personally I appreciated the playback feature, specifically because it is useful for someone viewing an edited document/conversation to see why and how it was edited. Another general comment is that the platform appeared to be relatively easy to use. The user seamlessly blogs, tweets, organizes, hyperlinks, translates, etc.
Overall, Google Wave appeared to be an improved, easier way to communicate virtually. Any way libraries can diversify, streamline, and popularize communication with its existing and prospective patrons is beneficial. This is even better when the software and platform is open/free to use and open for development.
2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?
Google Wave was a unification of multiple services into a platform that upgraded electronic communication. It makes me think of the iPhone in that the iPhone was a unification of a phone and media device so that people didn’t have to carry around both. The iPhone was an improvement in convenience, among other things. I am at a handicap because I never tried to use Google Wave, but would argue that Google Wave had the same goal, but perhaps not in the context of the same demand. Meaning, the convenience of eliminating one device in your pocket was not the same as eliminating visiting a few different services. Further, the iPhone’s success depended on individuals purchasing and using the device. For Google Wave’s primary product to succeed depended on groups of people starting to use it together. An individual alone would not see all the benefits of Google Wave.
|
|
|
|
Post by areigle on Jan 21, 2013 12:14:22 GMT -5
1. I think that if Wave was useful to libraries in anyway it would have been a pretty advanced tool used for collaborating on research. The ease and instant updating within waves would have made sharing information between a patron and a librarian quick and would have provided a useful log of sources and ideas between the two entities. The ablity to drag and drop media easily into conversations would also be helpful.
However, I do think it would be advanced. The type of user that would take time to learn and utilize this tool would be rare. At my library, we already have a hard time convincing our patrons to use research tools such as Zotero or Mendeley that Google Wave would have been a bit of stretch to get patrons to use.
2. There is one main reason I think Google Wave failed, and that’s primarily that it was too many things bundled together. I personally like having some separation between some of my tools (e-mail, im, etc.). When you put them altogether it becomes too much, and even with the ability to search and organize, it still takes away some of the user preference to compartmentalize certain things.
Also, while the playback is meant to help users understand what happened within a conversation, I think it would get out of hand. Answering certain parts of a message in the middle of a message looked confusing and when it was applied to editing documents, I think it got even worse. The play back could become so long that it would be almost useless. Also, the ability for multiple people within a wave to edit things simultaneous may seem helpful, but that could be dangerous if it is an important file where pinpointing a problem is crucial.
Finally, I think that, just from the demo video, that the idea that they wanted the first users to edit a sandbox version of what they were showing was also a reason it failed. It wasn’t finished, which is fine, but it made me feel like they were waiting for you to finish it, giving it no particular deadline. Because of this, I’m sure some people were actually unwilling to try and explore a tool that was not technically finished. This technique may work for other things (game demos, for example) but this one is a little too complex for that to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by areigle on Jan 21, 2013 12:22:28 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. ... I think you hit a very good point. There are many applications and tools that do what Google Wave did, but better. The combination of all of these tools into one thing seems like a great idea but it means compromises have to be made. Image editing would be one example. Some applications give more options than I can see being offered through Google Wave, since it's meant to simplify things in many ways. I also agree on learnability. The curve is just too steep at this point I can see many people having accounts without utilizing the tools to their full potential. |
|
|
|
Post by areigle on Jan 21, 2013 12:55:49 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... I discussed something similar in terms to virtual reference in my post, however I .... I actually didn't think of it those terms either. This would be a good application of the tool, because I believe that librarians do not collaborate enough. Also, librarians are more likely to want to use a tool like this as full and expertly as possible. In this way it would be more useful between librarians than between partons and librarians. In this way it would be a tool that could be used to network and find librarians who are in the same field as you or in one that you want to enter. |
|
|
|
Post by ewrenn on Jan 21, 2013 13:09:51 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. - I agree on your first point. Libraries generally are not trend setters--your point about chat and instant messaging is evidence. On the other hand, based on the promo, Wave captured chat in a new way in a unified platform. The question is: would a Wave hosted chat updating on a library’s blog appear to the library patron any differently than the ask-a-librarian interface? In essence, would librarians been able to use Google Wave features to their benefit without patrons knowing they were using Google Wave? This promo was the first time I heard of Google Wave so I cannot really say. I saw Google Wave as more beneficial to a librarian's workflow, not necessarily something they would have to teach patrons to use. - On your second point, I entirely agree that Google Wave was designed to do things that we already have services to do. It unified and tweaked a few services without inspiring enough people to use the unified platform. Maybe someone will be inspired to make a better version. |
|
|
|
Post by ewrenn on Jan 21, 2013 13:17:44 GMT -5
1. I think that if Wave was useful to libraries in anyway it would have been a pretty advanced tool used for collaborating on research. The ease and instant updating within waves would have made sharing information between a patron and a librarian quick and would have provided a useful log of sources and ideas between the two entities. The ablity to drag and drop media easily into conversations would also be helpful. However, I do think it would be advanced. The type of user that would take time to learn and utilize this tool would be rare. At my library, we already have a hard time convincing our patrons to use research tools such as Zotero or Mendeley that Google Wave would have been a bit of stretch to get patrons to use. 2. There is one main reason I think Google Wave failed, and that’s primarily that it was too many things bundled together. I personally like having some separation between some of my tools (e-mail, im, etc.). When you put them altogether it becomes too much, and even with the ability to search and organize, it still takes away some of the user preference to compartmentalize certain things. Also, while the playback is meant to help users understand what happened within a conversation, I think it would get out of hand. Answering certain parts of a message in the middle of a message looked confusing and when it was applied to editing documents, I think it got even worse. The play back could become so long that it would be almost useless. Also, the ability for multiple people within a wave to edit things simultaneous may seem helpful, but that could be dangerous if it is an important file where pinpointing a problem is crucial. Finally, I think that, just from the demo video, that the idea that they wanted the first users to edit a sandbox version of what they were showing was also a reason it failed. It wasn’t finished, which is fine, but it made me feel like they were waiting for you to finish it, giving it no particular deadline. Because of this, I’m sure some people were actually unwilling to try and explore a tool that was not technically finished. This technique may work for other things (game demos, for example) but this one is a little too complex for that to work. One of the features I liked most during the promotion was the playback; however, you make a good point about negatives involved. I easily could see the line-editing/responses from multiple people in a group to be disorienting. It could be like trying simultaneously to "track changes" from multiple reviewers. What happens when two editors simultaneously edit a line, and more important, when they disagree. When everyone is free to talk at the same time who is listening? I wonder if this became kink in the system as people started to use the sandbox version. |
|
|
|
Post by hillgren on Jan 21, 2013 14:18:56 GMT -5
1. I think Wave had the potential to be successful for librarians, but not necessarily libraries. It seems like a great way to track citations and for librarians to communicate with one another.
For patrons, though, the learnability curve would be a little too high. Maybe not in, say, a university library. But for your average patron who comes to use a library computer...I suspect the librarian would spend all her time attempting to train patrons. Plus, not all patrons already have google accounts!
2. Taking your branding from Firefly, an awesome but brutally discontinued TV show, is never a good way to start. I'm only partly kidding.
It really does seem to me like a failure of branding. Google already had an awesome browser and an awesome e-mail host. Asking users to learn what seems to be a conglomerate program with many more complicated features. I already like gchat and gmail and google docs! Adding a separate program that has the same features, just all mashed up, muddles the purpose and the brand.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgarnett on Jan 21, 2013 17:14:40 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries.
I have to admit, none really leap out at me. The most likely use I would see would be in internal communications - much the same as within any other company or institution. Between librarians and users, I'm less sure. Would you want something that could be constantly edited by all sorts of people? Perhaps as an upgrade on IM reference chats - but I don't see it being a particularly useful tool on a library website.
2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?
Well, my initial reaction, watching the video and trying to put myself in 2009 with this as the latest-and-greatest, is along the lines of 'do I have to do this'? I'd have predicted its success, too, and assumed that I'm just a Luddite for not being overly enthused: it sounded good at the beginning, with the collaborative editing and conversations, but I had completely lost track with what was being used where and why and for what by the end. As an analogy - there's a reason (I'm assuming) why Microsoft has not yet decided to squash together Excel, Office, and Access into one giant program - can you imagine trying to sort out all those toolbars and functions or shifting between multiple types of applications within one document?
Also, two of my main concerns would have been structure and control. There are probably advantages to having your documents merge into your email ... but there's a lot to be said for having things tidily sorted out into different programs in general, as well as just in different folders or 'tags'. As for control, there's the potential to have people add things that aren't relevant, aren't necessary, make accidental deletions - playback or no playback, a document which a lot of people had access to could get very messy in a hurry. And that's the whole point, isn't it, that a lot of people would have access?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgarnett on Jan 21, 2013 17:36:17 GMT -5
The user seamlessly blogs, tweets, organizes, hyperlinks, translates, etc. I wonder if this might not get back to the reason Wave didn't make it, as opposed to one of its assets? That's an awful lot of stuff in one place from one person - in a document/wave that's meant to be accessible to and used by many people. And while I may find your edits and a few quick comments useful on our document, what if I really don't care about the fact that you're blogging it? Do I need to see your tweet if I don't even use Twitter? Or the three other tweets someone else posted in response, all completely inane yet technically related? Some other people - mleist, I think, was the first - have commented on the information-overload aspect of the interface. I find I'm overwhelmed by the potential information-overload of the user-created product. |
|
|
|
Post by taneshaalex on Jan 21, 2013 21:24:06 GMT -5
Given what we know about the usability and needs of a library, I believe the idea of Google Wave would have been very helpful in libraries. The platform would have merged together communication media, which would have made it easier for libraries to reach patrons and keep the lines of information coming and going open. Implementing Google Wave would have also made it easier to reach sponsors and formulate relationships with other information houses such as museums and the home library. Libraries rely heavily on communications via the internet, so conceptually this would have been a good idea. However, on the other hand Google Wave would not have survived because of the communication restrictions it presented. While using Google Wave users could not communicate with contacts on their regular email lists. For a library using this platform, this could sever communications causing an all over communication breakdown.
|
|
|
|
Post by taneshaalex on Jan 21, 2013 21:25:13 GMT -5
I think you bring up a brilliant point in your number#2 responses. For this particular situation, we have to put ourselves back in 2009 with an idea that Google Wave is new and shiny. The assumption that this platform could fix everything by offering everything in one location would have raised expectations. To mesh several large programs together in one location as Google Wave was attempting to do would have been disastrous and complicated for the user. The aspect of control and structure would be easily lost, as you mentioned which is not what users need when they are attempting to simply communicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by taneshaalex on Jan 21, 2013 21:25:55 GMT -5
I agree with you, Google Wave would have been useful more for the librarians over libraries. The point you brought up relating to citations. Communicating citations to patrons would be a great use for Google Wave, however in this context communicating multiple citations via this platform can be time consuming and stressful for librarians. In addition, not to mention this would only be a useful platform if the patrons knew how to use it, which could cause usability issues. Google chat and Google docs would be an easier way to communicate information between patrons and librarians.
|
|
