|
|
Post by golbeck on Jan 23, 2013 0:44:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by s2teennovelist on Apr 9, 2013 20:08:40 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries
Honestly, when I first saw the Google Wave it did not seem as new or as impressive or any different from the multiple e-mail, forum and IM chats I constantly use on various internet websites. However, I CAN see how this product would be useful to libraries, specifically Google Wave's idea to explore and view shared accounts and messages rather than viewing one e-mail at a time. This would be an excellent site for librarians because it allows them to speak to multiple users at once (specifically if they have the same question) and it would allow them to introduce multiple users to various resources and messages at once. And not only that but multiple librarians can answer the same question. I also find the feature that people can leave their messages, come back later and then see all the posted messages since then, however, as i said this is very similar to the websites I'm a member of that use forums. However, from a librarian perspective I have never seen such a feature and I can see librarians using this to connect to multiple librarians in various locations and states (possible even countries) and users at once and allowing them to communicate all at once and share references, resources and other websites
2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?
As I said earlier, Google Wave's format is very similar to the social networking and forums I've seen on other websites I use (and I have taken time into consideration and these were long before Google Wave was first introduced). As such, I think the reason Google Wave failed was its restriction. It is mentioned on the wikipedia site that "Those who received invitations and decided to test Google Wave could not communicate with their contacts on their regular email accounts. The initial spread of Wave was very restricted." This is a HUGE problem for sites like this because people need to be able to talk to and communicate with their contacts and if they can't they easily become frustrated and will use other websites or features as a means of communications. I think Google Wave's restriction problem is its biggest flaws, because the purpose of a social networking site is to connect people automatically. If users do not have that option then they will move on to another social networking site.
Another problem i think was its learnability. This site is incredible complex and has features upon features which takes away from the very reason people LIKE using Google: its simplicity. For example there is an entire step by step process you need to go through to add a new person to a conversation rather than sending a simple invite, and the same thing with private messages. The point being, the system seems a lot more complex then it needs to be and this can quickly make it difficult and frustrating for new users.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary Sanphilipo-Ward on Apr 14, 2013 15:09:41 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries.
I found the possibilities of Google Wave to be exciting. Not having any hands-on time with the program, I can only respond based on the video and thought that it worked quickly and easily. The biggest complaint I found was the restrictions on initial access, but all Google products start out with such restrictions. I had to be invited to open a Gmail account by someone who had been invited by someone else. It traveled slowly and by word of mouth. Google+ began the same way and this may be its downfall. Facebook has such a hold on the social media frenzy that Google+’s slow and controlled entry may prove once again to be fatal.
I believe that the ease and flow of conversations within Google Wave would have been a boon to the reference librarian. They would be able to bring in a third party when needed to handle questions out of their comfort zone or a supervisor, if needed.
Being able to switch from e-mail to IM mode and back would mean a librarian would have options for answering more difficult questions. The IM question that required more in-depth research could be tabled and easily returned to when the research is completed. Another amazing feature would be the ability to drop photos into a ready reference session. The map or photo to answer a question could be instantly seen by both parties and discussed as needed.
The greatest use for librarians though would have been the ability for mini planning sessions for conferences or program planning. Being able to tag in several librarians from across the country or the globe would have made collaboration much easier.
Obviously much of this technology has since been picked up by other software and services but having everything in one place would have made for a more seamless process. The fact that Google is committed to open source always made them more appealing to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachaels on Apr 15, 2013 10:02:40 GMT -5
Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries.
I think Wave seemed like a particularly competent project management tool, and as such had potential for use in libraries. It could have been useful for managing any number of administrative and mission tasks, including planning for circulation needs, what books to bring in to the library, outreach projects, scheduling needs, etc. It could also have been used to integrate the increasing use of social media in reference work into a system that would be easy to track and easy to turn into FAQs for the website. It integrated with the rest of Google well and was coded to be integrated into standard webpages.
I didn’t see anything that screamed *library* more than any other organization. Again, mostly just useful project management and media integration.
What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?
I actually asked at a company I used to work for, where it’s very technical (mostly graphic design and web hosting), and the response I got from them was that everyone joined…and then waited for something interesting to happen. We have programmers and developers, and they were also interested in the potential, but they didn’t find anything terribly compelling about it, and so didn’t jump on board the open source option.
For myself, I think it was too big. There were several components of Wave that I think would be awesome – actually, the EtherPad collaborations we have in our other class remind me a lot of the basic Wave concept. But the integration of live chat to email, breaking out pieces of conversation – that makes sense, but just by itself it’s approaching overly complex. I think if they had brought these components out as discrete options and then gradually integrated them, it would have been easier for users to begin utilizing.
|
|
leann
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by leann on Apr 15, 2013 19:07:00 GMT -5
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?
I remember when Google Wave was first released hearing a ton about it in the media. It seemed as if people were very excited about it - and indeed, the audience in this video seemed this way as well. But as we know, that enthusiasm didn't hold through. Ultimately Wave was doing so badly that it was altogether put to rest - this is a huge, drastic move!
My thoughts are that it is possible Google Wave was just doing too much. I was very impressed by what I saw in the video, and a bit regretful that this tool is not currently available. I can easily see, though, how this vast array of different tools integrated into one platform may have been too much for many people. Maybe people didn't want to have so much information shared with others; maybe people were concerned about using it incorrectly and sharing the wrong information, or misconstruing information; maybe many people saw it as a specified tool that was only to be used by professionals or users who had a very targeted goal in mind.
The here-and-there sharing and work that most people do on a daily basis may not be enough to warrant the type of extreme collaboration and sharing that Google Wave presented. The learning curve that it required was simply too high for the results that would be gained.
------------------
I'm editing my post to add a response to the other question; the assignment says "answer one of those questions" and "post your response to both questions" in different places.
------------------
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries.
Yes, I think there was some potential for Wave to be useful in libraries, but only to a limited extent. There are various ways in which Wave could have been implemented but some of the ultimate factors that may have deterred this progress would be: user familiarity and registration barriers.
For one, I think many users would have been stymied by needing to register for an account in order to participate. Without user participation, Wave would not do much good – anything done only by staff could have been easily replaced with a web page instead.
I also think users being unfamiliar with the application would have led to low participation. Either through not being aware that the features of the Wave existed, or not feeling comfortable enough with the technology to determine how to use the application and in which instances it could be useful, participation would again be low.
|
|
leann
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by leann on Apr 15, 2013 19:11:41 GMT -5
This would be an excellent site for librarians because it allows them to speak to multiple users at once (specifically if they have the same question) and it would allow them to introduce multiple users to various resources and messages at once. And not only that but multiple librarians can answer the same question. I think this facet of Google Wave could have potentially been a gigantic benefit for libraries, particularly public and schools (generalized - elementary, high school, college; not specialized academic libraries). The waves could serve as a sort of live, consistently updated FAQ section - all of the past inquiries that have been asked would be public, and a person could perform a search on the queries to see if something similar to their question had already been asked. There is a learning curve there, but Google products are typically fairly intuitive. The search would probably be easier to do than asking a question - that part may have required some directions. Additonally, as Lauren mentioned about resources, popular resources could be put there as well and easily modified for updates, changes, new resources, and so on. I know that these things can be done on other platforms, but I think Wave would have been well-suited to this. |
|
|
|
Post by s2teennovelist on Apr 15, 2013 22:35:26 GMT -5
@ Rachel
I think that's the sad thing about the google wave BECAUSE it had so much potential especially for librarians and library use, because of its multiple uses, not just for librarians to answer questions, but yes also to track books, circulation etc. etc.
I find it interesting that its lack of compelling stuff that was why it failed. I'd never heard of that before, but at the same times it makes sense. I believe I noted that too because, Google Wave didn't have anything terrible new about it or to it that made it unique so ultimately Google Wave's failure was its lack of anything "new"
|
|
|
|
Post by s2teennovelist on Apr 15, 2013 22:45:05 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries. I found the possibilities of Google Wave to be exciting. Not having any hands-on time with the program, I can only respond based on the video and thought that it worked quickly and easily. The biggest complaint I found was the restrictions on initial access, but all Google products start out with such restrictions. I had to be invited to open a Gmail account by someone who had been invited by someone else. It traveled slowly and by word of mouth. Google+ began the same way and this may be its downfall. Facebook has such a hold on the social media frenzy that Google+’s slow and controlled entry may prove once again to be fatal. An interesting point, Mary makes its how Google's "slowness" may have been its downfall. Obviously, we can't look at google wave on its own so all we have to go from is the video, so all of our resources come from third party references. But I can see how the slowness can be a huge problem especially compared to the speed and instantness of Facebook, G-mail and other such sites, so Google Wave's slowness and its only access being "word of mouth" could've been huge problems, not only because of the program itself but business reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by justinthomas on Apr 16, 2013 16:38:28 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries.
I think some aspects certainly had great potential for libraries, but at the same time, other aspects self-sabotaged Wave and rendered a lot of the potential moot.
I think Wave had great potential for electronic reference services (ala Ask a Librarian). Librarians would have been able to easily incorporate various rich content into Waves; if something was beyond a librarian's abilities in regards to a particular reference question, they could conference with another librarian and bring them into the reference interview; frequently asked questions, or any questions that could be deemed pertinent to library users, could be cataloged and viewable to other library users (alright, such a thing might have required some third party developments with the open source--such a feature wasn't obviously executable to me from the YouTube video); etc.
However, while Wave could export to things like blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, you would have to have a Wave account to view and interact with Waves (to my understanding--correct me if I'm wrong, of course). This would render the potential moot, in my opinion. You could not really expect the majority of people seeking reference help electronically to have a Wave account (and then of course you're going to have to expect them to have a good grasp on the mechanics of Wave).
I think the potential was there to make electronic reference services more dynamic, but the requirement of both parties (the librarian and the user) to have a Wave account was asking too much.
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?
As I stated before, I definitely think requiring everyone to have a Wave account was asking too much. I can use Google Docs with the same log in information as my Gmail account--why couldn't they have done the same with Wave? I understood that their intention (from the developer preview video) was for Wave to be cross-platform--however, it seemed like if you were to send a Wave to someone's Hotmail account, they would not be able to properly view it, if at all (again, correct me if I'm wrong here and I misunderstood something; the developer preview presentation was intermittently awkward, to say the least).
Also, it seemed like during the developer preview presentation that while they originally intended for Wave to be a reimagined and updated version of email, that they at times strayed from that focus and tried to also have a finger in the pie of online social networking services. A good example of this that sticks out to me is when they wanted to make a Wave centered around showing off their vacation with the offshoot that they could maybe make their co-workers jealous. That's what most people have Facebook for--and more people have Facebook than ever had Google Wave accounts (therefore more people you could make potentially jealous).
In the end, I think it was cool that they were trying to reimagine and update email, but the focus was a bit too scattered and it needed to be able to work with your Gmail account and be truly cross-platform (if I sent a Wave "email" from my Gmail/Wave account to someone with a Hotmail or Yahoo account, then they would be able to view it just like I sent it--and hopefully interact and add to it as if they had a Gmail/Wave account, too).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary Sanphilipo-Ward on Apr 16, 2013 17:56:21 GMT -5
I think the potential was there to make electronic reference services more dynamic, but the requirement of both parties (the librarian and the user) to have a Wave account was asking too much. The librarian could have used Google Wave as another tool. All of the ideas you stated about FAQs, etc would still work but it would mean the librarian would use the Wave for in-house reference between other librarians rather than with the patron. Too cumbersome. Google has grandiose ideas but sometimes they get too ambitious or they get in to the game too late. I am still not convinced that Google+ is going to survive. Yes, I have an account by I never use it. No one is there and it seems a moot point when FB exists. |
|
|
|
Post by rachaels on Apr 16, 2013 19:37:57 GMT -5
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?I remember when Google Wave was first released hearing a ton about it in the media. It seemed as if people were very excited about it - and indeed, the audience in this video seemed this way as well. But as we know, that enthusiasm didn't hold through. Ultimately Wave was doing so badly that it was altogether put to rest - this is a huge, drastic move! My thoughts are that it is possible Google Wave was just doing too much. I was very impressed by what I saw in the video, and a bit regretful that this tool is not currently available. I can easily see, though, how this vast array of different tools integrated into one platform may have been too much for many people. Maybe people didn't want to have so much information shared with others; maybe people were concerned about using it incorrectly and sharing the wrong information, or misconstruing information; maybe many people saw it as a specified tool that was only to be used by professionals or users who had a very targeted goal in mind. The here-and-there sharing and work that most people do on a daily basis may not be enough to warrant the type of extreme collaboration and sharing that Google Wave presented. The learning curve that it required was simply too high for the results that would be gained. I agree - it seems like maybe it was too robust. I can definitely see users feeling like they wouldn't need this complex of a system, this many options, etc, and looking for a more streamlined system to work with. I also agree that it was complex and perhaps overwhelming. Really too bad, I think there was some real innovation here. Sometimes timing really counts in tech, though. |
|
|
|
Post by ferline on Apr 17, 2013 7:50:18 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries I actually followed Wave's development and release in 2009 via tech blogs and articles in Slate and Ars Technica. It was amazing how quickly the tech bloggers completely turned on Wave - from initial gushing excitement about how this was going to "revolutionize" web communication to extremely harsh criticism in quite a short time. Frankly, I never really saw the need for a service such as Wave. A hybrid of email, chat, and google docs? But I have email, chat, and google docs for that! I don't really need an all-in-one solution, especially one with such a high barrier to entry. Just as Wave was very unsuccessful in the tech community, I think it would have been a complete bust in most libraries, both for staff and patrons. (see my reasons below) 2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed? -It was way too complicated. Just looking at a sample screenshot of a Wave-in-progress, you have so many areas of text to be looking at, so many scrollable parts of the screen, and it's constantly moving and updating. Plus, the interface looks like the last gasp of "Web 1.0," with none of the elegant simplicity and design of Twitter, Facebook (sort of), or even Gmail itself. It looks like Microsoft made it. (sorry, PC fans, but you know what I'm talking about) And there are so many newfangled terms for what you're doing on it - I can send a wave, a ping, a blip, a wavelet...ugh, I'm exhausted just thinking about it. It's too much to learn when we already have terms for those things that everyone is familiar with: a message, a text, an email, etc. It took an *hour* for Google to introduce it, for goodness sake! You can grasp the concept of, say, the iPhone, in about 10 minutes. -It let people see what you were typing as you typed it. Everyone HATED this, and for good reason. Chat messages are fully formed when you send them. Letting people see what you type as you type it is like letting them read your mind while you're talking! -Timing. Google Wave was released after a lot of tough work by developers to select individuals only, mostly those already in tech. They were excited about it at first, but quickly reported about their difficulties before the general public really had a chance to check it out. This soured a lot of people on the experience from the start. Google Buzz, another oddly useless service, was also launched in early 2010, and upset a lot of people. Google started to get a reputation for making flops. And finally, Twitter absolutely blew up and became quite popular from about 2007 - 2010. The kind of "conversational flow" that Wave tried to create with a lot of bells and whistles was done very simply and effectively by Twitter. -Made for/by developers instead of for users. Who is Google Wave *for*? Business people? Artists? Writers? Students? It seems like one of those things developers throw together because it's challenging to create and a complex problem to solve...but no one was thinking about users and what problem the service was actually solving. The early reviews of Wave (links below) say all kinds of things about how cool it is and how there's so many uses for it...but never really say what those uses might be. Bad sign. There are functions Wave tried to incorporate - real-time collaboration, chat, etc. - that would serve libraries quite well. I think other services perform these functions far better, and many institutions are using them. For example, Twitter works well as a kind of chat/collaborative conversation service. EtherPad, Google Docs, and wikis are a great way to collaborate on creating a knowledge base or shared document. Google Chat and Google Hangouts (or Skype) are good ways to talk in real time. And good old email is still one of the best ways to communicate, for all its flaws. Some links: www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2009/10/its_just_fancy_talk.htmlwww.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/08/wave_goodbye.htmlarstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/09/surfing-the-google-wave/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/google-wave-why-we-didnt-use-it/ |
|
|
|
Post by mccallen on Apr 17, 2013 10:31:05 GMT -5
@ Justin
I really like the idea of using Google Wave to have multi-person reference interview with a patron. The concept is something to consider applying to current chat/email features of libraries. Great idea.
BUT as you say, the patron shouldn't be required to have certain accounts in order to receive the best help possible. That would be poor practice on the library's part.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethland on Apr 17, 2013 10:34:39 GMT -5
Potential
With collaboration spreading among librarians around the country and world, something like Wave adds a real-time functionality to collaboration. Another application of document editing and collaboration would be in scholarly publishing. Peer-reviewing has been an issue in the digital age, but Wave offers some potential in making peer-review and editing much easier and quicker, speeding up the process but also keeping the reviewers accountable.
The blog publishing API provides some opportunities for marketing and collaborating with patrons. For example, I could see posting a Wave requesting input on special programs and getting patrons to respond on the blog, which then expands collaboration to between librarians and patrons, instead of just between librarians and librarians.
The Rosie translator would also allow librarians to do chat reference in areas where patrons speak other languages, allowing librarians to serve all their patrons with that service, instead of just those who can speak and type English.
Since I’m a copy editor right now, I have to say my mind was a little bit blown by their spell-check. I believe we shouldn’t rely on spell-checking, but most of that is because we really just can’t rely on most existing spell-check software because it’s not reliable. I would pay for just that spell-check extension.
Failed
While there is some interesting potential for Wave, the main unique aspect is that Wave combines capabilities of already existing social media, document collaboration and email programs. Even Google itself offers these services, though it provides a bit of separation among them. It seems to me that these barriers between the programs add a little bit of organization you lose in the relative chaos of Wave.
The second problem is similar. To use Wave, you pretty would have to abandon all these other programs that already do what Wave promises to do. As we’ve learned with Google+, once a system is established, it’s really hard to get people on board with something new. Google+ is around, but few people use it as much as they use the Facebook (or Twitter) on which they had already established their social networks.
Finally many of the cooler aspects of Wave are the Extensions and user-created API. It could be hard to convince people to join up with a system that doesn’t yet have all the cool user-created extensions yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethland on Apr 17, 2013 10:41:57 GMT -5
For one, I think many users would have been stymied by needing to register for an account in order to participate. Without user participation, Wave would not do much good – anything done only by staff could have been easily replaced with a web page instead, I agree that using a new program can be difficult for users, but one of the pros of Wave was its Federation Protocol, which allows it to talk to other programs that users might already be familiar with. For example, the blog API allowed comments directly on the blog and while responses from librarians could be written in Wave (to keep librarians from having to sign in to all these programs), the users would be able to see responses right on the blog site, as opposed to needing a Wave account. However, the Federation was one of the reasons Wave could be considered far too complicated to have really spawned the mass appeal it was going for. As many other people have already said, the appeal of Google is its simplicity, and Google Wave is certainly NOT simple. |
|
