Re: community design participation

Thanks for the nudge. I summarized my thoughts on my wiki.

* In thinking in general about user focus, the only area that became a 
big question to me was how/soon to deal with PDA usage. For me, if I 
can't either synch to the existing PIM apps on my PDA or run new apps 
that work better with Chandler, then Chandler isn't going to be 
something that I can use. I wonder how many people face the same issue?

* in looking at some threads I've found frustrating, it's not that they 
seem unanchored to the core vision, it's that they seem to be addressing 
multiple UserStories, which might have very different requirements, and 
very different priorities (specifically, story2 may have higher cost to 
accomplish, but lower priority). I'm concerned this can result in an 
overly complex design. Which relates to....

* My overall bias is toward speed of delivery of a good-enough (for me) 
tool. (I've defined that on my page as well).

http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/OSAF

Mitch Kapor wrote:

> Bill,
>
> We've tried to position Chandler as to purpose, target user, 
> differentiation from existing products on the web site, as further 
> developed in my web log.
>
> I've been impressed that the vast majority of postings seem to be "on 
> target" even without anything more detailed than what we've done.  
> There's been a lot of discussion about very advanced features.  
> Chandler is going to support some very advanced features.  The design 
> trick is to provide room for these without them getting in the way of 
> basic use.
>
> What specifically would be most useful to you in anchoring the design 
> discussion further?  I'd like to take it into account.
>
> Mitch
>
> At 09:57 AM 11/8/2002, Bill Seitz wrote:
>
>> I think just getting everything possible that's "in" OSAF "out to" 
>> everyone else is the first priority. Even if you just dump out to a 
>> read-only wiki.
>>
>> Of that, I believe the highest priority is info defining the context. 
>> I'm especially frustrated by the weeks of detailed discussions 
>> happening in the absence of user scenarios, profiles, etc. Have such 
>> things already been documented? If so, get'em out there, even in 
>> static pages. If not, announce that, so that others can get started...
>>
>> http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/OSAF
>>
>> Mitch Kapor wrote:
>>
>>> We have the beginning of a plan to address this and some related 
>>> issues by creating a topically organized wiki as a collaborative 
>>> document to represent the current state of thinking and discussion 
>>> about Chandler design.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The details of the plan will be worked out on the process list once 
>>> we can put up a strawman draft, which will be shortly. We're all 
>>> going to learn together how to do this.
>>
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process
>
>
>
>
>

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process