raison d'etre

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

raison d'etre

Dan Mosedale
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

beltzner
On 4/19/06, Dan Mosedale <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We started a discussion in our meeting last week about the high-level
> goals of Mozilla Calendaring; I'm attaching the portion of the meeting
> log that encompasses that discussion to the bottom of this message.  I
> postulated at the beginning of this meeting that one high-level phrasing
> of what we're doing could be "that we want to use the net to make time
> management and scheduling easier for people".  After we had the ensuing
> discussion, I still think that's a pretty reasonable way to look at it.
> Now some of the main modifications that people proposed:
>
> * including one of "open standards/interoperability/service neutrality"
>        This seems reasonable to me; I'd be interested to hear
> suggestions for how to phrase it
>        concisely enough.  On the other hand, one could look at this as
> just an implementation detail.


Interoperability is the key, which was nicely summed up in the chatlog
you attached as "Don't bind me to your service". I think there's a
need to create a product that makes the market *expect* to be able to
share, publish and access their calendar data from everywhere. There
*needs* to be a clean solution to the free/busy problem other than
"make sure that you're using the same service as the other guy.

> * innovation
>        There's no shortage of innovation in the Calendaring market, but
> I think we do want to do it
>        when appropriate.  Whether this really belongs in such a
> high-level goal, I'm not sure.

Is there really innovation, or is there merely choice? I think it's
perfectly acceptable for this group to make innovation a part of its
mission, as opposed to simply offering a choice. This will affect
every design decision, every RFE, etc, and hopefully keep the focus on
making things better for the user, even if that means departing from
some assumptions of what a calendaring client is or is not.

> * alternative to Outlook
>         I don't believe that defining ourselves in terms of another
> product is a good idea.
>         We're trying to find some semi-concrete goals, and "be like
> Outlook but not" isn't something
>         that one can really focus on.  Additionally, it seems to that
> it's likely to
>         push us in the direction of "do X because Outlook does it", not
> because it actually helps
>         users.

Totally agreed. The Firefox charter handles this well, IMO, in that it
never directly expresses that the goal is to create an alternative to
IE. Whether or not you want to express the desire to ensure an easy
transition from leading calendar clients (here I'd include OE, Notes,
iCal, and maybe Palm Calendar) is something to think about, though.

> * offline
>         I think the interesting thing to convey here is that we want a
> "smooth intermittently-connected
>         experience."  The idea here is that we want to be very good at
> dealing with and discovering
>         Internet resources while offline, and then syncing those locally
> as appropriate, such that
>         things will, as much as possible, simply continue to "Just Work"
> if/when the network
>         connection goes away.  This too might or might not be
> high-enough level to include in our
>         main goal.  If we do include this in our main goal, that would
> seem to suggest that it would
>         be a required feature for 1.0.

This is definitely key.

[..snipped out irc log...]

cheers,
mike

--
/ mike beltzner / user experience lead / mozilla corporation /
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Michiel van Leeuwen
In reply to this post by Dan Mosedale
Dan Mosedale wrote:
> We started a discussion in our meeting last week about the high-level
> goals of Mozilla Calendaring; I'm attaching the portion of the meeting
> log that encompasses that discussion to the bottom of this message.  I
> postulated at the beginning of this meeting that one high-level phrasing
> of what we're doing could be "that we want to use the net to make time
> management and scheduling easier for people".  After we had the ensuing
> discussion, I still think that's a pretty reasonable way to look at it.  
> Now some of the main modifications that people proposed:

The way the sentence is now, the net is the first thing to be mentioned.
It's not like we want to use the net, and happen to think the
calendaring is a nice application. The order should be switched.
Calendaring is the goal, the net is an utility.
Also, the net isn't an utility by itself. It's used to communicate with
others. I think we should include that somehow.

>
> * including one of "open standards/interoperability/service neutrality"
>       This seems reasonable to me; I'd be interested to hear suggestions
> for how to phrase it
>       concisely enough.  On the other hand, one could look at this as
> just an implementation detail.

I think using standards is pretty important. It is a requirement to not
be locked into a certain service or vendor. Choice and all.

> * innovation
>       There's no shortage of innovation in the Calendaring market, but I
> think we do want to do it
>       when appropriate.  Whether this really belongs in such a
> high-level goal, I'm not sure.

Innovation doesn't need to be a goal, i think. We should try to make the
innovations usable for 'normal' users

> * alternative to Outlook
>        I don't believe that defining ourselves in terms of another
> product is a good idea.

I fully agree.

> * offline

These days, the main reason to use a fat client seems to be that it
always works. So offline would be important. But I'm not sure enough if
it high-level enough.


About the exchange point: The number of reactions I read about people
using sunbird/lightning in their small offices (like 10 people)
surprises me. I think there is a pretty big market there. Easy, low
cost, exchange (pun not intended) of meeting details.

Michiel
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Stefan Sitter-3
Michiel van Leeuwen wrote:
> Dan Mosedale wrote:
>> * offline
>
> These days, the main reason to use a fat client seems to be that
> it always works. So offline would be important. But I'm not sure
> enough if it high-level enough.

I think offline is an essential feature. If you always have to be
online to use your calendar why use Sunbird? You could use any web
based calendar instead. Offline modus is a feature that the web
based calendars can't offer.

Personally I prefer to keep all my data (calendars) on my local hard
disk. Therefore I download calendars and integrate them as a local
calendar instead of subscribing at the moment.

You could summarize this as: "Always edit the calendar locally but
have the possibility to view and/or share them online."
An use cases for this could be any calendar with sport events,
public holidays, movie theater program, etc. that is made available
online for subscription.

Restoring the 'automatic publish' feature from Sunbird 0.2 would
help on this topic. You have a local calendar that will be published
to a remote location automatically (e.g. every 10 minutes).

This has the benefit of a local calendar (performance and speed of
SQLite storage and offline modus) and the benefit of a remote
calendar (as backup or for read-only sharing).

>From a developers point of view this should not be that much effort.
The publishing code is already existing and there is no need for
some kind of special offline caching.

And from a users point of view it is much better than doing
publishing manually every time. I have already seen several reports
in the german and english forum missing that feature in Sunbird 0.3a1.

/Stefan
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Michiel van Leeuwen
Stefan Sitter wrote:

> Michiel van Leeuwen wrote:
>> Dan Mosedale wrote:
>>> * offline
>> These days, the main reason to use a fat client seems to be that
>> it always works. So offline would be important. But I'm not sure
>> enough if it high-level enough.
>
> I think offline is an essential feature. If you always have to be
> online to use your calendar why use Sunbird? You could use any web
> based calendar instead. Offline modus is a feature that the web
> based calendars can't offer.

Sure, being able to use your calendar while being offline is important.
It's even so important, that it speak for itself. You should be able to
have a calendar that's fully stored on your own computer. And that even
works currently.
In recent discussion, when talking about offline support for calendar,
that meant being able to access your server-based calendar while
offline. For example, your caldav calendar or your calandar stored on
your http server. And that's something completly different. I think this
kind of offline support isn't high level enough to be our raison d'etre.

> From a developers point of view this should not be that much effort.

Saying that something shouldn't be much effort is a very dangerous
thing. It generally means that it's pretty hard.


Michiel
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Michiel van Leeuwen
In reply to this post by Dan Mosedale
Dan Mosedale wrote:

> * alternative to Outlook
>        I don't believe that defining ourselves in terms of another
> product is a good idea.
>        We're trying to find some semi-concrete goals, and "be like
> Outlook but not" isn't something
>        that one can really focus on.  Additionally, it seems to that
> it's likely to
>        push us in the direction of "do X because Outlook does it", not
> because it actually helps
>        users.

I came across this nice post today: (also read the link in it)
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/04/22/guerilla-disruption/
With that in mind, only defining ourself as competitor to outlook seems
bad. There are some many other markets to look into! Small offices,
where simply sharing calendars would making appointments easy.
Home-users, sending event details to their friend, when going to a
movie. Websites, publishing event information, about which movies runs
where and when.
Just wanting to compete with outlook will needlessly narrow our focus,
and minimize the chance of success.

Michiel
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Mark Harrison-7
Michiel van Leeuwen wrote:

> Dan Mosedale wrote:
>> * alternative to Outlook
>>        I don't believe that defining ourselves in terms of another
>> product is a good idea.
>>        We're trying to find some semi-concrete goals, and "be like
>> Outlook but not" isn't something
>>        that one can really focus on.  Additionally, it seems to that
>> it's likely to
>>        push us in the direction of "do X because Outlook does it", not
>> because it actually helps
>>        users.
>
> I came across this nice post today: (also read the link in it)
> http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/04/22/guerilla-disruption/
> With that in mind, only defining ourself as competitor to outlook seems
> bad. There are some many other markets to look into! Small offices,
> where simply sharing calendars would making appointments easy.
> Home-users, sending event details to their friend, when going to a
> movie. Websites, publishing event information, about which movies runs
> where and when.
> Just wanting to compete with outlook will needlessly narrow our focus,
> and minimize the chance of success.

Here's my feedback, based purely on being a user:

Main use case:

We have a church website and have a need to coordinate our
facilities (meeting rooms, etc).  We have phpicalendar running,
and keep the .ics files on the web server.

So, we need an easy way for people to edit the shared facilities
calendar we have on the server.

Right now there are several different programs, depending on
your OS platform, that can edit .ics files remotely.

So, this might be a good use case to consider.
Important feature:  easy to connect and configure server information.

Cheers and thanks for all the work!
Mark
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Dan Mosedale
Banned User
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Dan Mosedale
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Joey Minta
Dan Mosedale wrote:

> I've spent a bunch of time pondering the discussions we've had about
> high-level goals for calendaring, and I've come up with a new iteration
> that I think does a reasonable job capturing a lot of the key stuff
> that's been brought up.  To wit:
>
> "We're trying to provide software to make time management easier which
> makes effective use of Internet resources and doesn't bind the user to a
> single service."
>
> Some thoughts on the phrasing:
>
> * I picked "time management" because that includes calendaring, todos,
> and scheduling.
>
> * "easier" encompasses usability and learnability,
>
> * "effective use of Internet resources" includes scheduling
> (ITIP/freebusy), intermittent connectivity, and
> searching/discovering/sharing calendaring info.  It also makes it clear
> that the Internet is to be used in service of the higher-level goal, not
> just because net.candy is cool.
>
> * "doesn't bind the user to a single service" includes low-barrier to
> entry & exit (import/export), open-standards (adoption, participation,
> and innovation), and seamless integration of data from multiple sources.
Is 'service' the right word here?  It seems like 'applications' bind people.

>
> My current inclination for what to do with this (once we've reached
> rough consensus) is to put together a charter page somewhat similar to
> the Firefox charter page
> <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/charter.html>, but with the
> goal statement at the top, and then a short set of bullet points
> somewhat similar to those in this post explaining the overall vision in
> a bit more detail.
>
> Also, for what it's worth, I suspect we'd do pretty well to accept most
> or all of the bullet-points in the Firefox charter as our own.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dan
I like this a lot.  It seems to have done a very good job balancing the
various points of view.  I also second the idea of copying most of the
rest of the firefox charter, although we may need to decide our own
criteria for 'small download size'.

-Joey
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Michiel van Leeuwen
In reply to this post by Dan Mosedale
Dan Mosedale wrote:
> "We're trying to provide software to make time management easier which
> makes effective use of Internet resources and doesn't bind the user to a
> single service."

I like it :)


Michiel
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: raison d'etre

Stephan Schaefer-2
In reply to this post by Dan Mosedale
Dan Mosedale wrote:

>
> "We're trying to provide software to make time management easier which
> makes effective use of Internet resources and doesn't bind the user to a
> single service."
>

I fully agree to this statement, however, 'trying' sounds too
pessimistic to me. What about just declaring it as our goal ?

> Some thoughts on the phrasing:
>
> * I picked "time management" because that includes calendaring, todos,
> and scheduling.
>
> * "easier" encompasses usability and learnability,
>

Is 'easier' meant in comparison to the various calendaring apps
available or in comparison to not having a software solution at all ?
What about just using terms like 'easy' or 'simple' and including our
(still to be defined) target audience which is at least, well, diverse ?
   Sorry, I have no proper phrasing to offer - just some thoughts...

> * "doesn't bind the user to a single service" includes low-barrier to
> entry & exit (import/export), open-standards (adoption, participation,
> and innovation), and seamless integration of data from multiple sources.
>

Could this somehow be converted into a positive statement ? Something in
the sense of supporting the user's choice of service in the best way ?
Hmm, but may be your proposal is easier to verify...

>
> Also, for what it's worth, I suspect we'd do pretty well to accept most
> or all of the bullet-points in the Firefox charter as our own.
>

Yes, definitely!

Stephan
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-calendar mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar