r2 - 24 May 2006 - 18:02:17 - PriscillaChungYou are here: OSAF >  Projects Web  >  OsaFoundation > WorkingGroups > DesignGroup > MondayDesignMeeting20060522 > MondayMeeting20060523

Notes: May 22nd 2006 - Design Meeting

Target user for Scooby/Chander and how it differs.

Sheila reviews scooby stickie plan

Scooby quickie background to current day

  • use of calendar w/ Scooby
  • came up with a list of features to create a basic calendar --> ended up in May 2006
  • taking a subset of the list of features
  • took the rest of the features into a stickie plan

Stickie plan types of users

  1. Chandler usage remote access CalDAV portion of the data
  2. Drive by collaborator/people who may use Scooby, but is not really using Chandler. Ie. User A uses Chandler to push calender on the web, Scooby for User B when travelling and does not track their own calendar.

Additional Questions for Scooby on where these features fit in the stickie plan?

  • Month view
  • Print
  • Sending reminders to mobile devices

1.0 Potential Target User

  1. Chandler User
  2. Non-Chandler User
  3. Web 2.0 User
  • Who the Chandler target users are going to be? It is unclear is who going to be using the Scooby —target user?
  • Do we need to have more then calendar?
  • Is it useful for me if I only have remote access?

Higher level strategic questions:

  1. Calendar or more than calendar?
  2. Target users
  • A. remote access desktop user P2
  • B. drive by collaborator (and individual contributor, someone not using the desktop and wanting to collaborate.) P1
  • C. is there a user that is sitting in Scooby all the time? P3 3. Scooby as a plug in/mash-up? Should this play a role in the strategy?
  • What would made that stuff be compelling in the web domain, A. & B. necessary to achieve C.
  • A. & B. clear benefits to strategy, paths to users/adoption.
  • C. is unknown.

Katie: C. is someone is using Scooby on it's own merits.

  • Web 2.0 repurpose the technology developers end users ie. yahoo groups comm driven collaboration on mass scale

Web 2.0 Mimi definition

  • massive large scale community driven content
  • push vs. pull. content gets pushed vs. pulled to you
  • self-regulated (tagging, rating systems)
  • Some amount of work for developers to be excited and make it easy for them to help.
  • Once we have minimal read/write calendar do you continue to build features for calendar or mac to other areas (tasks etc.)?
  • Is there some sort of alpha version plausible alpha framed & beta framed stuff, stickie exercise.

-- PriscillaChung - 23 May 2006

Edit | WYSIWYG | Attach | Printable | Raw View | Backlinks: Web, All Webs | History: r2 < r1 | More topic actions
 
Open Source Applications Foundation
Except where otherwise noted, this site and its content are licensed by OSAF under an Creative Commons License, Attribution Only 3.0.
See list of page contributors for attributions.