|
|
Post by mccallen on Apr 17, 2013 10:42:51 GMT -5
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. I had a similar thought during the video. Who is the audience in the big picture? Sure the whole thing is impressive (I certainly was impressed by the translation app.) but who is going to benefit from all this stuff? There is SO MUCH to Google Wave that they seemed to be targeting everyone and that's one of the reasons why it was overwhelming. Google might have been better off selecting a audience and tailoring the Wave to certain groups before doing a massive, multipurpose Wave for everyone to do everything. |
|
|
|
Post by mccallen on Apr 17, 2013 11:09:46 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries
Wave had potential to be a successful tool for libraries, if the Wave was tailored for library use. Google Wave was far too complex and had limited user use to even be desired by libraries. However, using a Wave system that didn't limit patrons by having accounts and was more streamline and simple in design could be beneficial.
As Justin mentioned, a Wave allows for multiple persons to be involved in one conversation in real time. Allowing librarians to collaborate together with a patron could yield great success, unless it became too complex and confusing to follow. The idea sounds good on paper but I am not sure if it would work in real life.
The Wave is a great idea but if libraries were to use the system many changes would need to take place (many changes would need to take place for ANYONE to use the Wave).
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?
(1) Too complex and too big. What is the learning curve? Most users are going to feel confused and overwhelmed by all the possibilities. Even simply things that can easily be done will feel difficult just because of all the stuff that is visible. Clutter causes anxiety.
(2) Is this for me? The audience for the Wave was unclear.
(3) How is this better than what I have now? The video didn't convince me that the Wave was better than all the separate materials I use now. How do all these things benefit from coming together?
(4) Privacy concerns. While there may be ways to enhance privacy in the Wave with settings, most people will likely still feel concern and wonder if they are working.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferline on Apr 17, 2013 12:22:13 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 actually don't see the utility in Wave as a tracking/project management tool, really. The ability to track orders and circulation numbers, etc., is built into most enterprise OPACs and cataloging software already, with the ability to easily pull reports. There's not much of a "social" opportunity there--that's something that's going to be emailed as a document/PDF or placed into a presentation for staff or a board of directors. One of my main issues with Google at times and Web 2.0 in general is often that the ability to comment/chat is de facto treated as an improvement, but sometimes we just don't need social capabilities for certain things! |
|
|
|
Post by justinthomas on Apr 17, 2013 16:43:24 GMT -5
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. Elizabeth, I wonder if the Rosie translator was better than Google's normal translator ( translate.google.com/). I assumed it was the same (which is to say, not good--I've used it to translate reviews on RateYourMusic from foreign users to discombobulating results), but maybe it wasn't, maybe it really was better--if so, what you said would have been absolutely true and it really would have been an absolute boon for libraries (so many libraries serve a multicultural user-base). But like you said with the spell-check: while we shouldn't rely on spell-checking, it's more so the existing spell-checkers out there currently--when better stuff is developed (which with the Wave's spell-check, it seemed much better with its context detection via information gathered from the web and whatnot), then that would be a different story altogether. I don't know if the Rosie translator was any better than Google's normal translator service, but when someone does finally develop a good online translator service--libraries really need to take full advantage of such a service. |
|
|
|
Post by jenntreadway on Apr 17, 2013 16:58:13 GMT -5
To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of Google Wave before this assignment. (Clearly, I must have been living under a rock). After watching the YouTube video and reading the Wikipedia overview, I was initially impressed with the browser-based tool and its various capabilities. However, after analyzing the usability of the platform, I do see potential perceived flaws. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries?Google Wave certainly had potential to be a successful tool in libraries. However, this potential in libraries would have been fairly limited. In my opinion, Google Wave would have been an ideal intra-office communication system, but highly limited for external communication with patrons given registration barriers and user preference (unfamiliarity). While watching the video, I envisioned how much easier collaborative work on Excel spreadsheets and Word documents with my colleagues might be with this tool. In fact, I particularly appreciated the playback feature as it would often be beneficial is seeing changes that were made in a document and understanding how/why the changes occurred when working collaboratively on a project. My reasons for why this would have been highly limited for libraries to communication with patrons are largely based on registration barriers and user preference (unfamiliarity), but are also covered below in my explanation as to why Google Wave may have failed. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed? Although seemingly simple, Google Wave is actually overly complex, overloading users with multiple functions to remember and incorporate in their messages (not to mention, all the boxes on screen) as well as requiring users to read lots of text and keep track of multiple conversations. As a result, the learnability, memorability, and speed of the platform would have suffered. Furthermore, as Leann mentioned in her earlier post: 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. At work, we are constantly asking donors for their e-mail addresses. However, recently I read an article (link included below) on individuals turning off their e-mail to the outside world as the result of virtual junk and superfluous messages. In other words, Google Wave would have lead to lots of unproductivity. www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/03/29/mail-gets-cold-shoulder/xWOVx0s9h8EXVs8t6MxrmO/story.html?camp=newsletter |
|
|
|
Post by ferline on Apr 17, 2013 17:17:53 GMT -5
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. Agreed. If you start a new service, it has to be immediately apparent why you'd switch to it from what you're already using. (I'd agree with you about G+...why bother?) Instagram was so successful because it allowed people to do something that Facebook offered as a side-feature (sharing pictures) as its main function very easily and quickly. It's really hard to get people to switch, especially if you're going after business users. Organizations change much more slowly than individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethland on Apr 17, 2013 17:18:52 GMT -5
However, this potential in libraries would have been fairly limited. Jennifer, I'm right there under that rock with you! I hadn't heard of it until this assignment. And while I agree it had obvious usability issues, I disagree that's its application would be limited in libraries. I think to apply it to libraries would require out of the box thinking, but once you get outside that box, it could have had tons of potential for engaging patrons, aiding online reference and collaboration, not just among librarians but also among the patrons. Much of this potential lies in it's Federation Protocol, which would allow it to communicate with many other programs patrons already use and are familiar with. Even the collaboration gets potential out of the box. For example, have teens collaborate on writing music or poetry or fiction using the collaboration tool. You'd want a mediator, of course, but it could really help kids work together and get creative. I think while Wave is a failure, it did have one major plus: Some of the ways it got my and others' creativity flowing could help create standalone programs that serve some of the functions Wave was unable to accomplish simply because it attempted to do too much and did none of it really well. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary Sanphilipo-Ward on Apr 17, 2013 17:46:05 GMT -5
In my opinion, Google Wave would have been an ideal intra-office communication system, but highly limited for external communication with patrons given registration barriers and user preference (unfamiliarity). Jennifer, I too must have been under that rock. I also agree about the main attraction for librarians would be the intra-office communication. The ability to link multiple people together in a chat like environment but with much more features is very intriguing. I too especially like the idea of being able to playback to see how & when changes were made. |
|
|
|
Post by jenntreadway on Apr 17, 2013 19:27:19 GMT -5
while I agree it had obvious usability issues, I disagree that's its application would be limited in libraries. I think to apply it to libraries would require out of the box thinking, but once you get outside that box, it could have had tons of potential for engaging patrons, aiding online reference and collaboration, not just among librarians but also among the patrons. Beth, while I definitely see the potential for external communication using Google Wave's Federation Protocol as well as the potential for collaborative efforts, I struggle with the privacy/security of the platform when used in an external communication setting given the mix of private and public information sharing in active threads. In particular, I am concerned about the ability to add anyone to a wave without approval as well as the lack of ability to end a wave or assign a manager/moderator (although these problems may have been addressed outside the YouTube demo). In other words, while the idea of using Google Wave as an external communicator for libraries is great, I think the time library staff might spend policing collaborations (assuming that would be possible) could significantly outweigh the positives. For the most part, my security/privacy concerns only related to external communications/collaborations rather than Google itself. However, I would be interested to know if the Federation Protocol extensions would have been run on Google servers or the user business/organization's server. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethland on Apr 17, 2013 20:05:47 GMT -5
Jennifer,
I definitely don't disagree with you on the security issue. I merely wanted to point out that in a perfect world, Wave had some great potential for innovation in library programming. But since this isn't a perfect world, Wave failed, for the reasons you and others mention.
I think the video was interesting to watch, if only to get my own thoughts on technology in the library out the box somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by justinthomas on Apr 17, 2013 21:35:51 GMT -5
What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?(1) Too complex and too big. What is the learning curve? Most users are going to feel confused and overwhelmed by all the possibilities. Even simply things that can easily be done will feel difficult just because of all the stuff that is visible. Clutter causes anxiety. (2) Is this for me? The audience for the Wave was unclear. (3) How is this better than what I have now? The video didn't convince me that the Wave was better than all the separate materials I use now. How do all these things benefit from coming together? (4) Privacy concerns. While there may be ways to enhance privacy in the Wave with settings, most people will likely still feel concern and wonder if they are working. Great points, Alexandra! (1) Absolutely, I agree! There was an awful lot of clutter--and clutter that could continually update and change at that. Definitely the potential for overwhelming users with the plethora of information accommodated in the design. While there was nothing wrong with Wave having a lot of features, there was certainly something wrong with the way it was presented (which was information overload). (2) It seemed like, at times, the presenters were often exclusively making it out to be that Wave was for the techies in the room (often going on about what would be capable for them, and what they could do with the open source, and what new techniques they could discover, and so forth). But if it was supposed to be an update of email, then shouldn't it have been aimed at a broader audience? Or alternatively, shouldn't they have organized their presentation so they could have had a section for different broad groups? Like, they could have had a section of the presentation where they showed what Wave would mean for techies, then one for what it would mean for students, then one for people in the workplace, then one for artistic collaboration, then one for friends and family and socializing, and so on and so forth. (Really, the presentation was just plain awful; I squirmed in my chair several times. They should have figured these things out, such as who the audience for Wave was, and then they should have gotten professional public speaking coaches to help them organize the information and then figure out how to properly present said information effectively.) (3) Again, I totally agree. At first, during the presentation, when they said they wanted to bring email into the 21st century (I think I'm paraphrasing; I think they might have just said "if it was invented today" or something along those lines), I thought to myself, "Well, okay, sure; I guess it is pretty old. I don't personally see anything wrong with it, but hey, maybe you'll update it in a way that will seem entirely vital." Unfortunately, as the presentation progressed further and further, the more and more I was unsure if it was actually even an update of email. It just seemed like all these readily available services and materials from elsewhere were all mashed together--but how did that make it an update of email? And was it really better having them all in one place?--Especially if one of those things was social media, which by this time, really, anyone who is going to do it is already firmly invested in Facebook. It made it possible to check all of those materials/services in one place, sure, but because of the design it was information overload. The focus of the scope was entirely unclear to me by the time I finished the developer preview presentation. (4) Excellent point! With the overload of information provided via the design, user's efficiency would have been at stake when trying to make certain things private in a Wave (and then of course, whom they would be private to, etc.). In fact, there was such an overload of information provided via the design that the memorability could very well come into question, as well--sure, maybe the user could get a pretty good handle on remembering how to user the interface, but then with all of the clutter and ins and outs they could make a slip-up and someone could see something that you meant to have private and so on and so forth. Honestly, the more we talk about it, the more I realize that Wave was pretty darn awful. |
|
|
|
Post by emyers on Apr 17, 2013 23:04:46 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries
As others in the thread have mentioned, I think that Google Wave probably could have filled a niche for libraries in some way, but this niche is - in most cases - covered by e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, etc. which already have established user bases. While Google Wave might have been nifty for collaborating on library projects, I think that the learning curve and complex nature of the software would have been a deterrent to adopting this across the board. I think we have discovered that e-mail and other simpler applications are often more than enough to get the job at hand done, and something as "fancy" as Google Wave might not be necessary in most situations. And as Faith stated in an earlier post, we don't need to attach social media to everything. Had Google Wave been used in libraries, though, I think it would have had the most potential use with librarians collaborating on projects or sharing notes. It seemed a bit too complicated and redundant to use with patrons when library chat systems already exist.
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed?
This has been touched on by nearly all of us in this thread, but I think the main reason Google Wave failed was because of a sort of technological Matthew Effect. Google Wave was vying for users who were already loyal to platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Gmail (and as we know, these tools have a HUGE number of users). Not only that, but Google Wave didn't seem to be offering enough new content that these sites weren't already offering either in higher quality or on a much larger scale. Add to this the complexity of Google Wave, the relative difficulty of registering, and the apparent lack of effective marketing of the product. Thus, the Matthew Effect - more people are going to go to the "big" sites and use the "big" systems because, well...they're already big. No one wants to start using a communications tool that none of their friends are using. Google Wave might have been useful in smaller business-type situations, but it was obvious that the population at large was not incredibly interested when they already had Facebook, twitter, and other such social media sites (and all of their friends did, too).
Also touched on by others was the privacy issue. I too was a bit put off by the character-by-character transmission of messages as well as the private messaging tool. I agree with my other classmates who thought that this seemed a bit awkward. While I'm sure the private messaging worked just fine, the fact that the message would still appear in the user's own Wave thread might look a bit confusing, and many users might be too paranoid to implement it effectively.
Ironically, I also think that the presenters highlighted some of the problems with Google Wave. As excited as they were about the product, both Google employees admitted that the transmission of information was fast - maybe too fast - and that when characters are instantly transmitted to a friend's screen as you type, thoughts can get jumbled and conversations can get awkward. There was also a LOT to look at on the screen. Editing each others' messages/documents at the same time could get clunky fast, and a bunch of in-line replies could make an otherwise straightforward text string a jumbled mess. Admittedly, the playback option was pretty cool, and I loved the spell check extension. On the whole, though, Google Wave seemed to be an overly complex platform that wasn't offering anything substantially better than what Facebook, twitter, and other social media/collaborative tools were already providing.
|
|
|
|
Post by emyers on Apr 18, 2013 9:43:46 GMT -5
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. Agreed. If you start a new service, it has to be immediately apparent why you'd switch to it from what you're already using. (I'd agree with you about G+...why bother?) Instagram was so successful because it allowed people to do something that Facebook offered as a side-feature (sharing pictures) as its main function very easily and quickly. It's really hard to get people to switch, especially if you're going after business users. Organizations change much more slowly than individuals. Had Google Wave done what Instagram did and made a sort of "side-feature" their main component, I think it would have been much more successful. During the part where they were showing how to collaborate on a project, one of the presenters said that you could create a sort of "wiki-lite." On the whole, I think "-lite" is a good way to describe Google Wave from what I saw of the demo. It did a lot of different things, but nothing substantial enough to set it apart from other popular social networking platforms. It was pretty much "everything-lite." |
|
|
|
Post by emyers on Apr 18, 2013 17:52:35 GMT -5
Great points, Alexandra! (1) Absolutely, I agree! There was an awful lot of clutter--and clutter that could continually update and change at that. Definitely the potential for overwhelming users with the plethora of information accommodated in the design. While there was nothing wrong with Wave having a lot of features, there was certainly something wrong with the way it was presented (which was information overload). (2) It seemed like, at times, the presenters were often exclusively making it out to be that Wave was for the techies in the room (often going on about what would be capable for them, and what they could do with the open source, and what new techniques they could discover, and so forth). But if it was supposed to be an update of email, then shouldn't it have been aimed at a broader audience? Or alternatively, shouldn't they have organized their presentation so they could have had a section for different broad groups? Like, they could have had a section of the presentation where they showed what Wave would mean for techies, then one for what it would mean for students, then one for people in the workplace, then one for artistic collaboration, then one for friends and family and socializing, and so on and so forth. (Really, the presentation was just plain awful; I squirmed in my chair several times. They should have figured these things out, such as who the audience for Wave was, and then they should have gotten professional public speaking coaches to help them organize the information and then figure out how to properly present said information effectively.) (3) Again, I totally agree. At first, during the presentation, when they said they wanted to bring email into the 21st century (I think I'm paraphrasing; I think they might have just said "if it was invented today" or something along those lines), I thought to myself, "Well, okay, sure; I guess it is pretty old. I don't personally see anything wrong with it, but hey, maybe you'll update it in a way that will seem entirely vital." Unfortunately, as the presentation progressed further and further, the more and more I was unsure if it was actually even an update of email. It just seemed like all these readily available services and materials from elsewhere were all mashed together--but how did that make it an update of email? And was it really better having them all in one place?--Especially if one of those things was social media, which by this time, really, anyone who is going to do it is already firmly invested in Facebook. It made it possible to check all of those materials/services in one place, sure, but because of the design it was information overload. The focus of the scope was entirely unclear to me by the time I finished the developer preview presentation. (4) Excellent point! With the overload of information provided via the design, user's efficiency would have been at stake when trying to make certain things private in a Wave (and then of course, whom they would be private to, etc.). In fact, there was such an overload of information provided via the design that the memorability could very well come into question, as well--sure, maybe the user could get a pretty good handle on remembering how to user the interface, but then with all of the clutter and ins and outs they could make a slip-up and someone could see something that you meant to have private and so on and so forth. Honestly, the more we talk about it, the more I realize that Wave was pretty darn awful. Your point #3 sums up another problem I had with Google Wave. I think you're right that, all in all, not much about Wave was super innovative. Not to knock the work that the creators put into it all, but it did seem mostly like a mash-up of different applications that, when used together, could produce some interesting effects or help to facilitate - in theory - things like e-mail and group projects. However, the things you could do in Google Wave seemed like applications you could add to already existing e-mail systems. It didn't really seem like you needed a whole new platform to perform some of these actions, such as the playback button or the in-line replies. Also, I think there is a point where you start to get diminishing returns as far as speed goes. Google Wave was trying to let you do so many things so fast that it seemed overwhelming. Was the somewhat annoying character-by-character transmission really worth it to read the message a few seconds before it was sent? On top of that, it seemed like you had to get over a bit of a learning curve to be able to use everything effectively. And unfortunately for Google Wave, many people have short attention spans and aren't going to want to learn to use a new application that won't do anything too spectacularly new or interesting for them. Of course, I'm also speaking with hindsight, and I watched the video knowing that this product failed to catch on...maybe I'd have a different perspective if I had watched this demo when it first came out. |
|
|
|
Post by eojuri on Apr 18, 2013 18:49:53 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries and
From what I’ve read and seen, Wave seemed like an innovative way for people to communicate and interact. In the library setting, Wave might’ve been useful to provide virtual reference. Librarians could message and send documents (and e-books?) to users through Wave.
2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?
I had never heard of Google Wave until this assignment. On first glance, it looks a lot like the Facebook of today. TechCrunch described it as "part email, part Twitter and part instant messaging. Users can drag files from the desktop to a discussion." This seems like a cool way for people to share and communicate. I think that the first mistake that Google made with Wave was not giving immediate access to users. Instead Google gave initial access to only developers. During the time that access was restricted to developers users could’ve been trying out the product and giving feedback to Google as they used the product. From what I’ve seen of Wave, it is extremely detailed and complex with a lot of features but it also seems quite usable. The Facebook of today seems very similar and even more “busy” than Wave. The only thing that Wave is missing is a way to meet people through a network. Now that I’ve seen Wave, I wish I’d had the chance to try it.
|
|
