Re: [Sum] Contacts Design
Ed Bindl <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.osaf.design |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
So, I just spoke with Philippe and we came up with a plan of action to keep me busy while everyone is hustling and bustling for preview. Just wanted to keep you in the loop. So here's my TODO list: 1) play with the UI and make it prettier/more like the rest of chandler. 2) make notes stamp-able into contacts and add an icon to the markup bar. 3) add a contacts view to the Application bar. 4) play with the quick entry box and see if I can get that working. This should keep me busy at least until things settle down. I'm very open to suggestions/neat ideas anyone has, so feel free to chime in. Thanks, Ed Bindl On Jul 6, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Ed Bindl wrote: > Comments inline > >>> >>>> On Tuesday, Ed and I took an hour-long whirlwind tour of all >>>> issues relating to Contacts in Chandler. Here is the briefest >>>> summary I could pull together on what we discussed. I'm not >>>> looking for straight out answers to the huge list of questions >>>> below. There needs to be a bit more context for each of them to >>>> have a productive discussion. >>>> >>>> I am thinking that Ed and I need to loop in some brains from >>>> development to proceed. Philippe, as Ed's mentor, I'm looking >>>> for some assistance on next steps. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Mimi >>>> >>>> At OSAF we've talked about Contact Management in myriad ways: >>>> >>>> 1. A digital rolodex (Outlook, Palm, Apple Address Books) - >>>> would probably need to support mobile devices to truly fill this >>>> niche. > > IMO this is a necessary feature for chandler to be usable. > >>>> >>>> 2. A lightweight Customer Relationship Manager tool, a la >>>> Salesforce. A way to manage relationships, where managing >>>> relationships is essentially your job. Each contact entry is >>>> really a profile complete with a history/log of your >>>> interactions with this person: Calls, IMs, email exchanges, >>>> sharing history, mutual contacts, etc. >>> Could we just call this a relationship management tool? Very few >>> people really know what a CRM system does, and those that do, >>> associate them with salesmen and call center workers. Frankly, >>> I think that this is where the long term value of contacts is, >>> but we don't support enough information types to make this really >>> plausible. >> >> +1 to not using CRM or Customer or anything that screams sales to me >> >>>> + Contact <--> Task / Calendar It might be handy to use Contacts >>>> as a way to keep track of David Allen-style @People agenda >>>> lists, in which case you might want the Contact to show up on >>>> your Task list and Calendar as a recurring 1:1 event, especially >>>> if the Contact also has pointers to every item that references >>>> the Contact. This scenarios will be less obvious to people >>>> though, but it's maybe worth leaving them out there for now and >>>> see what people do with them. >>> I would definitely use this. >> >> I would also >> >>>> + Triaging Contacts If you understand the triage statuses to be >>>> a way of deciding whether or not you're doing, deferring or done >>>> with processing an item of information, then assigning triage >>>> status to Contacts makes sense. However, if you think of >>>> Contacts simply as archival information, triage status is >>>> understandably confusing. Would it make sense to add a 4th >>>> triage status for something along the lines of Archive? > > I think you should have to stamp a contact before you can triage > it. That way you can triage a contact in more than one way, i.e. > I can stamp a meeting with Contact A as done, but can stamp a > different task with Contact A as later or now. > >>>> >>>> 2. Edit/Update and Contacts >>>> Contacts should probably work just like other Items when it >>>> comes to edit/update. The scenarios are pretty much the same. >>>> > > The biggest problem with sharing contacts is updating as contact > information changes. If I share contact A with person B and then 2 > weeks later Contact A's information is updated. Should we update > this info for person B? What if contact A does not want person B > to have there new information? > Also someone could do this without realizing what they are doing. > > >>>> 3. Referencing Contacts, >>>> + Do items point to contacts or bits of contact info: email >>>> addresses, nicknames, full names, IM buddy names. > > I personally think they should be separated into bits of contact > info. Thats how I would expect it to work. > > We could use stamping to stamp an email or note into a contact that > only contains a human readable form of the contact. > > i.e. I get an email that has the address and phone number of a > great restaurant from a friend, I can stamp it as a contact and > look it up later. > I don't however think this should be the standard way. > >>>> + Are contacts embedded in items as sub-items or is it just a >>>> reference? > > I think references are the way to go here. Easier to update and > store. > >>>> + Do contacts point back to all the items that point to them? >>>> This last feature would certainly enhance search workflows but >>>> would also start us down the path of becoming a lightweight CRM >>>> tool. >>> It struck me as a sign of how far we've come that this is even a >>> question. Not that long ago, everything was supposed to be >>> connected by bi-directional references/collections. Is it bad >>> for us to start down the path of becoming a lightweight >>> relationship management tool? >> >> wow - I agree with Ted. If we lose any aspect of the bi- >> directional design I would consider it a major flaw. We may as >> well just offer up a way to open the Address Book and call it done. > > Definitely, I think Chandler would work best at a lightweight > relationship management tool. > >> >>>> 4. Sharing and Contacts >>>> Morgen, Sheila and I have already spent a lot of time agonizing >>>> over the many complicated sharing issues that come up as soon as >>>> we have Contacts. Here is a poor-man's summary of them. I don't >>>> think we need to have answers to all of these right away, but >>>> depending on what other functionality we want to have and what >>>> use cases we want to support, some of these will be more >>>> pressing than others. >>>> + If A and B share an item that points to a contact: C, do they >>>> share that contact as well? Or just whatever portion of contact >>>> information appears in that item. >>>> + If A and B each have their own contact for C, can we reconcile >>>> that? >>>> + What happens if A eventually shares contact C with B? >> >> Sharing Contacts with others needs to have a couple security >> related issues before it can be done properly IMO. For the first >> version I think Contact Sharing should be only for the current user. >> >> Sharing info between other users requires that the various contact >> fields can be flagged as public/private - this way you can share a >> contact name or address but not email or phone #'s, etc. > > Again what happens if you have an email that 6 months ago you > flagged as public, changes and now should be public. It would be > very easy for someone to accidently share the wrong thing with the > wrong person possibly without even realizing it. > > > I agree that the first version of contacts sharing should probably > not address these issues and only allowing current user sharing is > a good way to do so. > >> >>>> 6. What set of attributes do we need / want for Contacts? >>>> If we don't have all the possible vCard options, how do we >>>> display vCard attributes? >>> There's also the problem of user create attributes. >> >> user created attributes are important > > There is a note property in vCard that we could possibly store the > user created attributes in. > >> >>>> 3. Access Privileges >>>> + Are there ways to share parts of Contacts? Work info, but not >>>> Personal info? >>>> + Can you share different parts with different people? >>>> + Do you / can you share all the things that are are part of the >>>> contact log? ie. All the emails you've sent/received. All the >>>> tasks you've assigned/received >>> Multiply the difficulty of 2/3 because it intersects the security >>> model for the server as well. >> >> I think one model is that if you are sharing a contact with >> someone else, then they only get that contact's info that is >> marked sharable and not any of the linked information you may have >> for that contact. Think of it as more like exporting a vCard or >> as shallow linking instead of deep linking. > > I like the shallow linking idea. > > > -Ed > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list > http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design