Here is an example of a very basic test of a wave embedded into a web
page with a join wave button at the bottom: http://startupgrinder.com/wave
I may have found the answer to my question about privacy - unless you
add [log in to unmask] as a participant, your waves remain private
(within your group). I have not tried it though so I can't verify this info.
Kristofer Layon wrote:
> I think you both have valid points. It's a very interesting tool from
> an experimental point of view; practically, it is still relatively
> useless. It may morph into something more compelling, though, over time.
> To me, it's kind of a large and unwieldy Swiss Army knife of a tool.
> Other things are more simple and more reliable. Combining too much in
> one package results not only in the general buggyness of it, but then
> it also just becomes overwhelming to implement in daily life.
> But the application aspect does have weight. Twitter is another
> example more like email, that is more of a standard than just a
> proprietary channel (though it still is that, obviously). But the
> range of desktop tools has liberated Twitter to reside on my desktop
> and phone, but in the background just like email. I can choose to
> read often, or choose to read less often, yet keep them on all the
> time. So they're omnipresent yet function well asynchronously.
> I haven't tried anything like this with Wave yet, but I can't imagine
> logging into Wave and just leaving it on all day in a browser window
> in case something interesting happens. It seems like it requires
> immediate attention and very intentional engagement for it to do its
> intended purpose. Though I could be wrong and maybe if I didn't find
> so much practical utility in Twitter, Wave might seem more appealing.
> But Wave seems more like an online presentation or meeting (or -- gasp
> -- a live webinar); Twitter is more just a casual watercooler
> conversation (though with more people).
> And maybe these tools appeal to various people differently, depending
> on their personality types?
> So anyway, see you on Twitter instead. =)
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Zachary Johnson wrote:
>> Huh, you sure are giving Google a lot of credit! Nothing wrong with
>> that I suppose.
>> Me... I'm skeptical. Email revolutionized communication and became a
>> standard way for people to interact on the internet, but there's a
>> thousand different email applications, both desktop and web based.
>> There's even the divide between plain text and HTML emails.
>> The web browser may be a better example of a revolutionary
>> communications platform that (despite the variety of choices
>> available and the differences between them) comes close to presenting
>> a "standard interface through which the majority of people interact"
>> with the internet.
>> Wave *may* just prove to be the standard protocol for a
>> revolutionized internet communication (still skeptical) but I just
>> don't see everybody interacting with the internet through some sort
>> of Google-made Wave Browser. Google has at least been smart enough
>> to open up the protocol, which may make a future where there are
>> several competing Wave browsers on the market just like web browsers
>> now. Perhaps you weren't suggesting anything more than that, Patrick.
>> If Wave proves to be nothing more than another web application that
>> you interact with in your web browser, then I don't really see it
>> being *the* ubiquitous feature of post-Web 2.0. I think it'll just
>> be one of many things we use. Well... if we use it at all. Not all
>> of Google's inventions are successful. And so far, the few times
>> where I thought to myself "Ooh! I could use a Wave for this!" I've
>> been really disappointed with the User Experience.
>> Ok, I'll give Google some credit, too: They must be doing something
>> right if we're even having this conversation.
>> Patrick Haggerty wrote:
>>> Right now, I think Wave is more a toy than a full tool. Part of
>>> that is its feature set isn't complete and part is that we're all
>>> treating it like a toy. What I think Wave is ultimately going to
>>> become is a unified interface for Web 2.0. If they manage to
>>> integrate the service into social networks and blogs and forums and
>>> so on, we'll have one interface for the majority of online
>>> contribution and collaboration. Sure it's advertised as the next
>>> iteration of email, but I think its greater contribution will be to
>>> standardize the interface through which the majority of people
>>> interact with the web.
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Peter Fleck <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> Google Wave has been fairly successful in organizing the Other
>>> Future of News (OFON) conference. Julio Ojeda-Zapata provides some
>>> details at the Pi Press site.
>>> Peter Fleck
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> Patrick Haggerty
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> University of Minnesota Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> Phone: 612-626-5807
>> Zachary Johnson * Web Manager
>> Student Unions & Activities
>> (612) 624 - 7270
272 Appleby Hall
University of Minnesota