|
|
Post by jmessick on Apr 19, 2013 14:08:42 GMT -5
2. What explanation can you give for why Google Wave failed? .... 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. .... There is something cool to me about character-by-character transmission, as if I'm watching an action-spy movie or something. But practically speaking, I think you're right about it being awkward. I wonder whether was feedback concerning this feature during the short time that Wave was in operation. I really like the feature of being able to see the text as it is being typed. That's one thing I really like in the collaboration board on ELMS. It allows you to know and understand what the person is talking about faster. But I also like that you can turn it off because it would be embarrassing to be a librarian using this and having to go back and re-type everything due to mispelling and the patron would see all that. I think this feature is best for group collaboration but beyond that it is a little unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by andreab on Apr 19, 2013 14:59:53 GMT -5
Well put! It seemed as if this was the shotgun theory at its worse. A developed process for targeting audiences who were most likely to adopt this new technology might have made this more successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilyhough on Apr 19, 2013 16:40:43 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries
I think the Wave had potential to be successful in libraries. It could have been used as an instructional tool to teach patrons about any service in the library.
An email/video/doc could have been developed (lets say about checking out books) and those who had problems with checking out books could have been sent the email.
2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?
The only explanation I can think as to why Google Wave failed is that while it allowed multiple people to simultaneously edit and chat inside the waves and provided a single, hosted copy of a conversation that everyone could edit and discuss, it seems to have lacked many features that are in things like Google Docs, such as saving the document in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilyhough on Apr 19, 2013 16:44:52 GMT -5
laura -
I agree with your statements. I think that this technology could have been used for specific technology questions that patrons had. I also agree that blogs or many small waves would have had to be created so that the librarian could find specific waves to send to people.
I also agree as to why you think Wave failed - this technology is just available everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilyhough on Apr 19, 2013 16:56:09 GMT -5
Vsmith15 -
I didn't even think about patrons all messaging at once to librarians. I agree that this tool would have been cumbersome to use. Image 50 people signing in and wanting to talk to one librarian all at once - talk about a headache.
I also agree with you on why the Wave failed. If what people are working with isn't broke - people are really not going to shop around for something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by sophiereverdy on Apr 19, 2013 17:03:26 GMT -5
1.)Potential for use in libraries?
GoogleWave for librarians to use as a great platform for idea and resource sharing. Librarians, especially in small and special libraries, or those advocating for underserved populations. There is a really cool wiki for academic librarians, where they can share resources, experiences and advice about serving disabled student groups. The GoogleWave application allows for more dynamic collaboration than a wiki, which is more static, and I could see great potential for its use in these types of resource sharing situations. I also think that the GoogleWave application could have added a new dimension to virtual reference services. The app would make it easier to incorporate third parties into conversations, say if you were asked a complex question and you needed to consult another librarian, you could bring them into the conversation, and provide them access to the “recording” of your dialogue between you and the patron, “in real time.” Sometimes reference questions get muddled. it would be helpful to be able to directly reference previous parts of the conversation, to clarify what information the patron is actually requesting.
2.) Why might it have failed?
The whole time I was watching this, I was thinking, “Oohhh maaannn, this is so complicated, and there are sooo many opportunities to make embarrassing mistakes.” There are so many ways to bring multiple parties into a conversation, to leave and resume conversations, and to change the format of a conversation (ie private vs public), that it seems impossible to avoid a slip up somewhere and the inevitable that a Waver would wind up accidentally sharing (or oversharing) information with unintended recipients. The feature where you can post a conversation directly onto a blog made me especially nervous. Imagine some of your more personal chats accidentally showing up on a blog’s comment section. Yikes!
|
|
|
|
Post by sophiereverdy on Apr 19, 2013 17:14:23 GMT -5
1. I think Wave's best feature was its ability to collaborate efficiently. It may have been useful if library professionals need to work on something together without needing to go face to face. As a form of everyday communication, I don't think it would've had much use because there are already so many forms of communication that work pretty well (phone, chat, email etc). 2. Wave's learnability seemed to be the biggest problem, in my opinion. As the video showed, it took 80 minutes to demo the existing features. The addition of new features would take more time to learn. The average person wouldn't want to spend that much time. Implementing so many features at once really bogged down its usability. Perhaps it would have worked better if the different features were introduced gradually. Most other forms of communication are pretty simple with few extra features (attachments, 3 way calls etc). Wave should've gone just a step or two beyond that so people could "catch up." I absolutely agree about learnability being a huge issue. Aside from some goofy jokes and technical difficulties, It was a tightly packed 80 minutes. The whole time I kept thinking that I already use a handful of communication tools to do everything that you can do in GoogleWave, but compartmentalize tasks enough that it's not totally confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by sophiereverdy on Apr 19, 2013 17:22:19 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. Double agree. While I could see some potential for use with virtual reference, on second thought, I'm not sure such a a complex tool would be appropriate for this kind of use. Libraries (especially public?) serve communities with diverse digital literacy backgrounds, and introducing a tool this complex/with this many features as a means of communication with library staff might be more trouble than it's worth. p |
|
|
|
Post by geleskie on Apr 19, 2013 18:09:45 GMT -5
1. Explain whether you think Wave had potential to be successful in libraries
Had Google Wave caught on as its developers hoped it might, I think that it could have had some potential as a library reference service. Many of the wiki/chat/email features that it offered would have made it much easier to answer reference questions, directing patrons to the specific information they requested. It also allows a librarian to involve multiple people, perhaps as consultants, in answering a reference question.
The biggest problem with using it this way, however, is that it is one of those products that requires all participants to have an account with Google Wave. Most people just want their question answered, and do not wish to be bothered with registering for and downloading computer programs. Particularly not if similar technology already exists and does not require patrons to go to any extra effort.
2. What explanation can you give for why google Wave failed?
The limited access thing was probably a part of it, actually. It seems like it was a fairly complicated service which requires new users to figure out a lot of unfamiliar things with minimal assistance from familiar people due to the way the invitations were issued. Furthermore, what good is it to have this shiny new technology if you can't actually talk to any of the people you want to talk to on it?
Another problem I think Google Wave had was that most people looked at the features it offered and concluded that they already had a service that performed the same functions that they were familiar with and although it might have been marginally more convenient to have all those things take place within one system, the restricted access negates any convenience that might have been found with the all-in-one.
|
|
|
|
Post by geleskie on Apr 19, 2013 18:16:03 GMT -5
Well put! It seemed as if this was the shotgun theory at its worse. A developed process for targeting audiences who were most likely to adopt this new technology might have made this more successful. These are both highly relevant points, and I agree whole-heartedly. I kept finding myself thinking as I watched the presentation that all that was very nice, but I couldn't quite see why I needed it. (This is actually the attitude I take toward smart phones, too, and a large part of the reason I haven't purchased one yet). I really cannot imagine what sort of group would make use of this particular piece of technology, given the complexity of adding people to a conversation. Perhaps advertising agencies might find it useful? I really don't know. And touching briefly on the translation feature. That was really very cool, but I have to assume it runs on the same engine (more or less) that controls Google Translate, and if that is the case then it is an imperfect translator and probably shouldn't be treated as if it is perfectly reliable. Trust me. I went to school with a lot of people who assumed Google Translate would get them through their Spanish classes. Not so much. And Spanish is a very easy language (as opposed to Azerbaijani or Mandarin or Finnish or some of the other languages Google offers). |
|
aton
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by aton on Apr 19, 2013 22:10:03 GMT -5
I agree with you about the learnability, but I think part of that is because they were showing it, while still in development, to other programmers, so they were trying to highlight the complexity and opportunities. I tried to remember that throughout when it seemed so big and unwieldy. Then again, I never tried to use it, so it may have stayed big and unwieldy. My impression of the presentation was that they wanted the other programmers to come up with more additions to the Wave, which would have made it more unwieldy than it already seemed. And if such a demo was not released to the public, no one would know what the wave could do. But then again, who's going to want to spend that much time on it. |
|
|
|
Post by jenntreadway on Apr 19, 2013 22:14:01 GMT -5
1. I think Wave's best feature was its ability to collaborate efficiently. It may have been useful if library professionals need to work on something together without needing to go face to face. As a form of everyday communication, I don't think it would've had much use because there are already so many forms of communication that work pretty well (phone, chat, email etc). 2. Wave's learnability seemed to be the biggest problem, in my opinion. As the video showed, it took 80 minutes to demo the existing features. The addition of new features would take more time to learn. The average person wouldn't want to spend that much time. Implementing so many features at once really bogged down its usability. Perhaps it would have worked better if the different features were introduced gradually. Most other forms of communication are pretty simple with few extra features (attachments, 3 way calls etc). Wave should've gone just a step or two beyond that so people could "catch up." I absolutely agree about learnability being a huge issue. Aside from some goofy jokes and technical difficulties, It was a tightly packed 80 minutes. The whole time I kept thinking that I already use a handful of communication tools to do everything that you can do in GoogleWave, but compartmentalize tasks enough that it's not totally confusing. Learnability is absolutely a huge issue with this program. Like Sophie, I too was surprised by the amount of actually content was packed into the 80 minute presentation. While individuals like programmers and engineers can master this technology quickly, I'm not the average individual could have just jumped right in with this platform. Although I would consider myself fairly technologically savvy, without the 80 minute presentation, I'm not sure I would have fully realized all the capabilities and features of Google Wave. With such a complex system learnability suffers and utimately memorability also suffers. |
|
|
|
Post by andreab on Apr 20, 2013 7:08:51 GMT -5
I inadvertently posted these yesterday in the old board from the link in the assignment post.
I will repost it here. Sorry for the error.
Using what we know about usability analysis AND what you know about needs in the library:
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 signin from traditional Google accounts.
The audience for Google Wave was not really 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 20, 2013 7:12:21 GMT -5
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.
|
|
