|
|
Post by hillgren on Jan 21, 2013 21:28:21 GMT -5
Agreed. In addition to the messy factor, it doesn't seem like there's any authority control. In GoogleDocs (or Drive or whatever the kids are calling it nowadays), the creator of the document can control who can modify it. In addition, I think there are some serious privacy concerns. If my friend Sarah emails me, and I include someone else in the conversation via Wave, suddenly a third party has Sarah's contact info whether she wants them to or not. 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 mleist on Jan 21, 2013 21:43:13 GMT -5
"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."
This application of Google Wave was not something I thought of when I was watching the video, but it makes a lot of sense! For digital natives and a younger audience that is generally more comfortable with tackling new technologies, building a connection between programs taking place in the library and a platform to continue the conversation that is not limited by physical means is a great idea. Because Google Wave was so diverse, it could be adapted to meet the needs of the particular user groups using it for library programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hillgren on Jan 21, 2013 21:50:57 GMT -5
I think it would make a great "How To Become a Blogger" forum! It would be a great collaborative tool to teach people how to produce content, for exactly the reasons that you've mentioned. Any writing group might find it useful to, especially for the potential to give feedback en masse. "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." This application of Google Wave was not something I thought of when I was watching the video, but it makes a lot of sense! For digital natives and a younger audience that is generally more comfortable with tackling new technologies, building a connection between programs taking place in the library and a platform to continue the conversation that is not limited by physical means is a great idea. Because Google Wave was so diverse, it could be adapted to meet the needs of the particular user groups using it for library programs. |
|
|
|
Post by mgarnett on Jan 21, 2013 22:33:08 GMT -5
As I check this discussion list from a dial-up connection out in the "middle of semi-nowhere" (as one of my sister's friends once called it), I find myself wondering about the sort of bandwidth Google Wave required. This discussion forum/board is heavily text-based, so it's loading reasonably well for me (well, the smileys aren't, but I can live with that). There are two factors here - the potential for every document to exponentially increase in size and complication, with all sorts of files and edits dumped into it, as well as the issue of the instant-updating. On a low-end connection, or even a decent one shared with multiple users, I wonder if the whole thing wouldn't spend a lot of time hanging up as it tried to keep itself current, so to speak.
In a corporate office in Silicon Valley, something like this would work swimmingly. On a college campus on the East Coast, no problem. But for those of us using copper landlines for our phone service, in an area that doesn't have cable strung out to it? Heaven help me if I have to load the UMD homepage (something I have, in fact, never successfully done out here). Google Wave would probably melt down the phone wires for the entire township. This isn't something that comes up in analyses of new products often, and I think that's short-sighted. If a product only works for 1/3 of the population with high-speed connections - and it's intended to be a basic working tool, not just a fancy on-line game or something similarly 'optional' - then is it really a success, no matter how popular with the in-the-know techie types?
|
|
|
|
Post by sehovde on Jan 21, 2013 23:14:05 GMT -5
1) Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries. Google Wave might have been a useful tool for libraries, but like many library programs and tools, it would depend on the library community adoption. It could potentially have served as a useful FAQ system, allowing users to ask questions and engage with librarians and other users to find the answers to their questions, as well as potentially discuss issues of interest to the community. [TechCrunch has the story of a police department that attempted to use Wave to find a criminal: techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/google-wave-manhunt/. Obviously this would be an unlikely use for a library Wave, but it could still be used for smaller problems.] However, in all likelihood a library Wave would end the same way as overall Wave did - a small cadre of frequent users, but a lack of widespread adoption. 2) What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed? Google Wave failed for two reasons: one, that it had no clear goal or form, and two, that it was unable to attract a large amount of users (probably due to its unclear intentions). With its unusual form, it acquired a small amount of dedicated, frequent users, but failed to draw in a wider audience (similar to the way Google Plus seems to be going of late). |
|
|
|
Post by sehovde on Jan 21, 2013 23:28:53 GMT -5
As I check this discussion list from a dial-up connection out in the "middle of semi-nowhere" (as one of my sister's friends once called it), I find myself wondering about the sort of bandwidth Google Wave required. This discussion forum/board is heavily text-based, so it's loading reasonably well for me (well, the smileys aren't, but I can live with that). There are two factors here - the potential for every document to exponentially increase in size and complication, with all sorts of files and edits dumped into it, as well as the issue of the instant-updating. On a low-end connection, or even a decent one shared with multiple users, I wonder if the whole thing wouldn't spend a lot of time hanging up as it tried to keep itself current, so to speak. That's a really good point! I grew up with a dial-up connection too (and still use it whenever I visit my family). I feel like that would definitely keep a lot of communities from making full use of Wave; a tool that could be used to bring people together would in fact do the opposite by emphasizing the digital divide. |
|
|
|
Post by andreab on Apr 19, 2013 15:43:55 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries and
I had not heard of Google Wave before this exercise. Over all, I think Google Wave had potential for a good communication flow, an ease in switching between modules which made workflow efficient. Especially useful was the group project section. This had possibilities for use in several aspects for library staff, but perhaps not as much for other applications. The need to create a profile/register can be an annoyance, but one people will overlook if the reward for doing so is big enough.
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?
Restriction on use of contacts and restricted initial use. Perhaps trying to do too much in one software piece, took too long to incorporate the new technology – big learning curve. Requiring a separate signing from traditional Google accounts.
The audience for Google Wave was not well defined. Like libraries, applications or software cannot be all things to all people. Additionally, I did not see a reason to leave what I may be using now to go to Google Wave. The “carrot” or reward for changing must be bigger than the “stick” or the learning curve for new things. I didn’t see that in this system.
|
|
|
|
Post by andreab on Apr 19, 2013 15:46:47 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries 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. I like the idea of using this for virtual reference and having a librarian "crowd sourcing" for the answer. The ease in interacting via multiple platforms could be interesting, or it could just be busy. But it does create some great possibilities. |
|
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?