Log for IRC meeting "Task-centered system: Concrete plans / task assignment"

Wed Jan 16 22:35:04 UTC 2013

Hi,
thanks again for the very productive and inspirational meeting today. I am 
positive that we have something great in the pipeline here!
Attached you'll find the raw IRC log (minus system noise). I'll write a 
summary in the Wiki as soon as I find the time (if in the meantime someone 
else want's to step up to do it though, I won't be in your way ;) ).
Cheers,
Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:12:28] <colomar>	--- Meeting "Task-centered system: Concrete plans / task assignment" starts ---
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:12:51] Quit	mbolo has left this server (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:13:28] Nick	miketesta is now known as mbolo.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:13:41] <colomar>	Okay. Anyone here who has not yet read the log or meeting minutes on the Wiki for the last meeting and should be given an introduction on its outcomes?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:14:11] 	 * Shaan7 has read
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:15:09] <notmart>	ok, so, very very brief recap then start
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:15:18] <colomar>	Okay
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:15:29] <notmart>	conclusion last time was still quite abstract if i remember correctly
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:11] <colomar>	In essence: What we want is a system which supports a combination of optimized UIs for different applications including document templates and other data to ideally support specific tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:26] <colomar>	For that we need:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar>	A set of commonly used tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar>	Tool building blocks, as many and as atomic as possible
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar>	A UI to connect the blocks to form a task workflow
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar>	A way to share / get them
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar>	A tool to easily create new UIs from templates
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:16:44] <colomar>	A way to start a task with given parameters
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:17:09] <colomar>	What we need very soon is at least one way to start a task
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:17:47] <Shaan7>	maybe the dialog which pops up after you click the "+" button has a section called "Create"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:17:50] <colomar>	The idea was to define an example task and create a tool to support that task
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:18:25] <colomar>	Shaan7: That is something I had in mind as well. It only works for tasks which involve creating resources, though
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:18:31] <colomar>	But I think we should have that
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:04] <colomar>	Okay so I think at first we should define what we want to have when, so that we cvan prioritize
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:05] <notmart>	i was more thinking of something that looks similar to the addons store
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:48] <Shaan7>	well I'd envision something functionally providing atleast an equivalent to the "Create New" context menu in Dolphin
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:49] <colomar>	notmart: We could have both. I think a button to start a creation task in the Add Items dialog makes sense as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:19:58] <kallecarl>	discussed task-centricity rather than application
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:19] <Shaan7>	yep so no PA application should have a dedicated UI to create new stuff
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:28] <notmart>	but, you could try to describe an user scenario, maybe it makes ring some beels about how an implementation could be
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:54] <colomar>	Okay, one example we came up with during the last meeting was the following:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:20:59] <Shaan7>	email?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:09] <kallecarl>	+1 - have to start with use case
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:19] <colomar>	A user is in a meeting. Either she has already created an Activity for that or just an event in her Calendar
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:21] <notmart>	one thing i am a bit hesitant about the add resources ui, is that the shell is quite huge already
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:35] <notmart>	i don't know if i want to add any more complexity anywhere near it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:57] <colomar>	Now she wants to take notes during the meeting and save those as an ODT file
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:21:58] Quit	fabian has left this server (Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:10] <kallecarl>	err save as a file
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:14] <kallecarl>	maybe
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:23] <Shaan7>	save as a document, rather ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:22:58] <colomar>	Shaan7: Of course from her point of view, it's just "A text document". She doesn't care about ODT of course ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:23:00] <kallecarl>	anyway...save notes for some purpose
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:23:06] <colomar>	Yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:24:02] <kallecarl>	colomar: what then? keep an archive, distribute notes, refresh her memory later?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:24:59] <colomar>	In that case, there should be a note-taking task which starts Words Active with a very minimalistic UI and the template she typically uses for note-taking with the date and meeting title pre-filled from the event
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:25:29] <Shaan7>	hmm alongwith tasks, the applications should be able to take contextual info as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:26:05] <colomar>	When she has finished the document, it should be both attached to the event and Activity and she should have the option to send it to the other meeting participants automatically
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:26:36] <kallecarl>	Shaan7: in other words, person is in a meeting and wants to write. task centered capabilities takes care of the details without person needing to specify:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:26:53] <kallecarl>	application, storage location, later access requirements
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:27:30] <Shaan7>	hmm and "later access requirements" is achieved by attaching it to the current activity?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:27:52] <kallecarl>	don't know "how" yet, just trying to get the user scenario
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:01] <colomar>	Yes. And it should be associated with the event in Nepomuk
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:25] <kallecarl>	gets complicated...what about if person wants to write a topical email?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:31] <colomar>	The whole workflow should be done without the user ever having to manually start an application
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:34] <kallecarl>	still writing, but also connecting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:50] <kallecarl>	actually writing + sharing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:28:59] <kallecarl>	+connecting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:29:07] <colomar>	That's what SLC is for :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:29:11] <kallecarl>	yeah
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:30:43] <Shaan7>	hmm
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:05] <colomar>	So we need something that starts the applications and provides additional information
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:38] <Shaan7>	and that something should be easy to access, maybe alongside the SLC icons
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:38] <aseigo>	wrinkle: if the person starts a document (say, a spreadsheet) and we want associated with the activity ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:48] <colomar>	And the applications need to be ready to use that info to adapt accordingly
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:50] <aseigo>	... we need an entry on disk, or at least in nepomuk, to make that association
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:31:55] <kallecarl>	so what's needed is a good definition of this example user scenario, and then exploration of how to implement given current or doable capabilities
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:32:35] <aseigo>	if we make that entry and then launch the application .. and then the user changes their mind and decides not to save anything, we end up with an empty file and an empty (no value) association with the activity
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:32:37] <notmart>	have some concerns on the idea (and also like it, it other parts)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:32:49] <aseigo>	if we don't create the item right away, then we rely on the application to do this
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:12] <Shaan7>	let the app do it, i'd say
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:17] <notmart>	i think the danger here is falling in the temptation of building some sort of "omnicomprensive" thing that lets you do all
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:17] <aseigo>	this is not a big problem, but i think it may say that we need some support in applications to really make this seamless.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:30] <kallecarl>	aseigo: ys
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:31] <kallecarl>	yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:33] <notmart>	just as a general thing of the usual advice of "keep it simple" ;0
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:33:52] <kallecarl>	writing document has different characteristics from spreadsheet document
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:03] <kallecarl>	but those can be distinguished
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:12] <aseigo>	we can provide a class / QML component that encapsulates all that quite nicely for the application .. but then we need a standardized way of launching an application in a way that triggers that 
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:17] <kallecarl>	still something is needed at the app level
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:25] Quit	Sho_ has left this server (Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:31] <notmart>	as implementation, for tasks that are creation of a document, probably it will have to be : user says create -> asks the name -> saves on disk -> adds in nepomuk -> associates with activity
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:32] <colomar>	notmart: Yes. I prefer to paint some unicorns on the wall first and then do the reality-check, though, instead of limiting ourselves form the start
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:50] <aseigo>	put another way: once the person has launched something, we also need the application to help us out to do the connecting bit
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:34:57] <Shaan7>	notmart: or, when possible, tries to guess the name from context
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:09] <notmart>	created either with some command to the application (parameters or commandline tool) or copied from a template file already existing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:29] <aseigo>	so when we design out the implementation, let's keep that in mind...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:40] <notmart>	Shaan7: that too, even toughnot sure how much context we can have besides activity name
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:35:41] <aseigo>	colomar: did you have any ideas of at which point the person gives their new "thing" a name?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:13] <rubentje1991>	context: location from gps?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:15] <colomar>	aseigo: I agree with Shaan7 that we should use context to suggest a name
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:16] <Shaan7>	notmart: yea but atleast that (plus other stuff like date/time) can serve as a default and the user can choose to change it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:34] <notmart>	yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:39] <Shaan7>	detecting more context can be more complex, but lets keep that as a possibility
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:40] <kallecarl>	aseigo: interesting point, Wittgenstein would say that naming it brings it into existence
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:36:57] 	 * aseigo would agree ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:06] <kallecarl>	you and Ludwig...like that
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:09] <colomar>	That should happen at the point where it's actually saved. In the meeting note case, something like "Notes for event "<title>" on <date>" could be suggested
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:15] <aseigo>	here's the rub with that .. (to keep throwing sticks in our path ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:22] 	 * Shaan7 has always wished Nepomuk to give us a nice "no-filesystem" Save dialog. trueg used to blog about something like a long time back
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:30] <aseigo>	it's sometimes hard to come up with a name before you start creating it. you may also want to change it later.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:44] <Shaan7>	aseigo: thats easy no? just let the Files app have a rename option
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:37:47] <aseigo>	Shaan7: his attempts were well meant and interesting, but overly complex imho
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:09] <Shaan7>	hmm, I remember very faintly though
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:11] <aseigo>	Shaan7: that's ugly though imo.. because then you need to find it, which implies leaving the creation app
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:27] <aseigo>	what would be truly awesome for myself personally is the ability to rename it whenever i wanted
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:33] <Shaan7>	ah by later you mean not that late when the app is closed
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:38:52] <aseigo>	right, i might open a new text document and call it "plasma active meeting"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:09] <aseigo>	and then 20 minutes into it realize i'd rather call it "new document workflow notes"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:18] <colomar>	Do we really need to create the file before the note-taking is done?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:20] <Shaan7>	hmm but thats only possible if the app provides that support, isnt it?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:29] <Shaan7>	colomar: yes, what if the device goes boom! :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:38] <kallecarl>	colomar: need to know that the file is going to be retained
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:38] <Shaan7>	with the SSD being intact, that is
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:40] Nick	trueg is now known as trueg_away.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:39:52] <aseigo>	colomar: no; and in fact we can't always .. so that's why the app must do the connecting for us as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:06] <colomar>	I'd prefer to ask for a name when the meeting is over and the user wants to complete the note-taking task
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:09] <aseigo>	Shaan7: yes .. perhaps ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:31] <colomar>	Maybe create the file with a dummy name and then rename it when the user has finished and knows the name?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:36] <Shaan7>	aseigo: what communication we need from the app? we just need to tell it "hey, create a document of this type with this title and show a nice UI to the user", right?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:46] <rubentje1991>	first a temp-name, later a definite one... or more focus on tags? or file properties?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:47] <aseigo>	colomar: is that always at the end?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:40:49] <notmart>	well, the app can save a temp file somewhere not seen by the user, that's another detail
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:15] <aseigo>	Shaan7: not even that really ... just "here's my document i created, please connect it to whatever it needed to be connected to"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:18] <colomar>	We've imagined the tasks as rather small, clearly-defined ones, not like "Writing a dissertation"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:20] <notmart>	only thing, if we save it later, we're again at the problem of having some sort of save-as dialog
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:22] <aseigo>	in a way, it's a bit like an automated SLC
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:28] <Shaan7>	aseigo: by whatever you mean some activity?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:33] <aseigo>	Shaan7: yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:36] <aseigo>	(as one example)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:41:41] <Shaan7>	okay
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:42:26] <aseigo>	colomar: or maybe drawing a quick diagram in krita
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:42:28] <kallecarl>	Shaan7: could be other than some activity too...e.g. person's name or company name mentioned in the writing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:02] <colomar>	aseigo: Yes. We also need a way to start a sub-task from within another one
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:04] <aseigo>	so for me (from an implementor's POV :) what i'd like to sort out is:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:09] Quit	jpwhiting has left this server (Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:17] <aseigo>	a) what the "starting point" UI looks like and can be responsible for
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:24] <aseigo>	b) what the application needs to help out with
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:43:50] <aseigo>	c) what other cool things we'll leave up to the user to handle (e.g. tagging it with things like the company name or a contact via SLC)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:23] <aseigo>	notmart: oh, which reminds me, i've been thinking more about SLC and have some thoughts i wouldn't mind discussing with someone soon
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:27] <aseigo>	(not now though of course :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:31] <colomar>	Yes. Though the "starting UI" is more like a "meta UI", because it also needs to pick up after one application's sub-task is done and the next one starts
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:50] <notmart>	aseigo: even right after the meeting is over is fine ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:50] <Shaan7>	colomar: didnt understand that one
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:44:51] Quit	mbolo has left this server (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:05] <aseigo>	colomar: that's interesting indeed. hm.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:13] <notmart>	sub-task, hmmmm
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:14] <aseigo>	colomar: and will absolutely require one of two things:
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:14] <colomar>	Shaan7: A task may consist of several applications
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:17] Join	AlmAck has joined this channel (~AlmAck at 156-19.198-178.cust.bluewin.ch).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:27] <aseigo>	a) application communication: "Ok people, I'm done"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:48] <aseigo>	b) process tacking (e.g. by PID) and rely on "application quit == do the next step"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:51] <notmart>	problem is when i think about stuff like that, i can't help but think to a system/ui that becomes kinda "bureaucratic"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:57] Join	jpwhiting has joined this channel (~jeremy at 65-130-51-171.slkc.qwest.net).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:57] Quit	jpwhiting has left this server (Changing host).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:45:57] Join	jpwhiting has joined this channel (~jeremy at kde/developer/whiting).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:00] <notmart>	and people don't like that ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:20] <aseigo>	notmart: if it's done well i don't think it will come across like that
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:42] <colomar>	Yes. It's something we need to keep in mind to avoid it, but that's doable
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:44] <Shaan7>	errm this sounds kinda complicated :/
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:46:50] <notmart>	yes, in the end there should still be at least an "illusion" of total freedom
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:04] <kallecarl>	in reality, there is a limited (and I'll say small) number of things that person will be doing at THIS location and at THIS time and in THESE contextual variables
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:18] <aseigo>	what would be utterly sick would be to go into the ui and by pressing options build "sentences" like: "create a drawing" -> "and send it by email" -> "to grandma"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:27] <kallecarl>	sick is good
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:51] <aseigo>	"take notes" -> "saved to my device"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:47:52] <colomar>	notmart: Yes, and customizeability as well. In Bj?rn's vision, users can modify or create new tasks themselves rather easily
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:00] <notmart>	aseigo: more as in navigating a menu or by writing sentences/commands?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:15] <aseigo>	notmart: neither :) pick from a set of options
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:17] <aseigo>	SVO
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:48:51] <aseigo>	subject verb object ... a syntax of sorts ... where the first set of options is what to make
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:08] <colomar>	And we can use all that context stuff we have for the recommendations here
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:30] <aseigo>	once selected you can select the "do it now" (or "saved to my device") option at the top of the next set of options ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:39] <colomar>	This may be one way where the recommendation engine can become really useful
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:49:45] <notmart>	eh, in reality all that exists here is most opened files not in activity yet... that's pretty much it ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:07] <Shaan7>	uh oh, now thats sounding like a grammar class :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:08] <aseigo>	and if you pick "send by email" then you get a list of contacts to pick from or a "choose recipients later" .. and them voom
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:14] <colomar>	hm, but what about the named locations and all that stuff?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:29] <notmart>	ah, yes, there are named locations
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:38] <colomar>	aseigo: Yes, and in the meeting case the meeting participants are suggested
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:45] <notmart>	and activities rated in relation to the locations
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:50:52] <aseigo>	nice thing about a simple grammar like that is it can be contextual, modular and saved as "sentences" for one press workflows if they are common
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:00] <aseigo>	(either as presets, or because the user wants to do the same thing again)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:28] <aseigo>	"Make a diagram and post it on google+"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:33] <aseigo>	colomar: yes, we can pull from contacts book + activity associations
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:51:49] <colomar>	Yes.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:11] <aseigo>	CSLC -> create, share, like, connect :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:36] <Shaan7>	...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:47] <kallecarl>	and doesn't have to be a sentence strictly speaking...could be touch gestures...circle the item, keep finger down, circle item2, pull to connect location
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:51] <aseigo>	colomar: do we have visual mockups, btw?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:52:54] <colomar>	The grammar could indeed be useful for creating tasks. Our idea in the last meeting was that users have a repository of common tasks (either created by them or by other users)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:16] <colomar>	aseigo: Not yet. That would be the next step on the design side
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:18] <aseigo>	kallecarl: yes, doesn't have to typed at all. i'd hope not, in fact. touching options would build the sentence
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:26] <Shaan7>	our problem is what exactly is a task, implementation wise
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:30] Quit	blaroche_ has left this server (Quit: Konversation terminated!).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:41] Join	rcg has joined this channel (~rcg at 2a02:908:e250:8401:99a6:6d9d:d1c7:5e80).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:53:43] <notmart>	aseigo: still don't understand how you would make the selection of the proper subject, then verb etc look/work...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:08] <notmart>	so it still "looks" like a menu navigation
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:32] <colomar>	notmart: Or more like a chain of building blocks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:37] <aseigo>	notmart: in the most trivial type of implementation ... imagine a list of all the kinds of documents you can create shown on the screen. maybe looking like the files app presentation.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:54:42] <aseigo>	you pick "image"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:55:11] <aseigo>	and now we have "Create an image..." shown somewhere (perhaps picking "image" causes that item to animate to where the sentence gets built?)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:55:33] 	 * aseigo notes that he's making this hard for translators, but will ignore that for a moment :P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:06] <Shaan7>	+1 for the something similar to the files app
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:11] <aseigo>	and now you get shown a set of options, based on what's possible with an image on the device -> saved to device; sent to owncloud; posted on google+; sent by email
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:13] <notmart>	hm, so not too different to my first idea about it, and i said "menu navigation" because i pictured it looking not much like the files app, but more like the addons app
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:20] <aseigo>	you select one or more and that builds out the "sentence"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:24] <colomar>	aseigo: Yes, that's what I have in mind as well. The different blocks moving to a place where the sentence is formed
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:29] <aseigo>	notmart: that could also work
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:56:34] <aseigo>	colomar: yea :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:08] <aseigo>	each block would represent another step in the processing pipeline ... now managing that pipeline, knowing when each step ends .. that's where the implementation bits about application cooperation comes in
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:22] <colomar>	I think this and notmart's idea with the columns could both be nice
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:29] <aseigo>	because perhaps i start an image to post to google+, but then change my mind and don't finish it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:41] <aseigo>	colomar: yeah, either would work out imho
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:45] <notmart>	in that case, the list of the selected items in the columns is the phrase
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:57:58] <aseigo>	notmart: yes...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:58:20] <aseigo>	the only hesitation i have with columns like that is i may wish to do multiple things with it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:58:29] <rubentje1991>	yep, is important
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:58:34] <notmart>	yeah
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:05] <rubentje1991>	but multiselect is an implementation issue I think
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:08] <aseigo>	save it to device, send it by email .. i may want to make a picture, then arrange it in my local photoalbum app, then post it online
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:50] <rubentje1991>	that would be a good starting workflow example
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [19:59:53] <rubentje1991>	in my opinion
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:00] <aseigo>	because it's hard? ;P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:10] <notmart>	could well be represented a list of do this then do that then this other..
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:14] <aseigo>	but yeah, it's not completely unrealistic
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:20] <aseigo>	notmart: right ..
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:28] <notmart>	just keep presenting the list of available actions once one is selected
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:29] <aseigo>	you have the "thing" you're making, then what you want to do with it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:00:47] <notmart>	eventually narrowing them down if a precedent choice made some actions not possible
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:00] <colomar>	notmart: yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:13] 	 * aseigo notes that in an SVO language, the "thing" gets named last
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:20] <colomar>	And also offer suggestions at each point based on context
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:01:35] <aseigo>	(which may be a hint to "when do we name it")
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:24] <aseigo>	going bak into implementation mode ... we always start with what kind of thing we want to create?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:40] <aseigo>	if so .. then we can link actions to file types as a first filter
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:40] <Shaan7>	yep
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:43] <notmart>	aseigo: then after one chosen all the stuff to do what would happen? it would need to tell applications what to do, maybe even more then one, maybe with a dependency chain...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:49] <colomar>	We don't necessarily always create things
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:02:55] <aseigo>	notmart: yes, that's the implication
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:03:07] <aseigo>	colomar: example?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:04:02] <kallecarl>	could also be diagrams ... a la http://scratch.mit.edu/ 
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:04:32] <colomar>	find me the ideal mode of transportation to get from here to my meeting, then navigate me and play a videeo to keep me entertained during the trip. And if I may be late, call Peter
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:05:22] <kallecarl>	colomar: exactly the kind of example I use when presenting PA
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:06:16] <colomar>	That's totally unicorns at this point, but it's Something I'd love to have. Just fire that up and you're fine, nothing more to do
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:06:34] <notmart>	so it would kindof create a "script" that does stuff
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:06:52] <notmart>	almost remembers me the apple automator thing
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:07:56] <colomar>	notmart: As long as they haven't patented the whole general idea yet, that sounds like a good thing ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:08:34] <colomar>	I guess the majority of tasks will probably be about creating stuff, but the system should be flexible to allow non-creating tasks as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:09:05] <kallecarl>	colomar: not necessarily...fetching stuff too
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:09:19] <colomar>	absolutely
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:09:44] Join	felix_ has joined this channel (~chatzilla at 178-83-54-60.dynamic.hispeed.ch).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:03] <colomar>	All Active applications should have the hooks necessar to launch them with given parameters and geed their status when they're finished
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:08] <colomar>	+y
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:35] <colomar>	geed = get (what was I typing???)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:35] <Shaan7>	what status will they give back?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:10:59] <Shaan7>	lets say Words, what will it return as a status when i'm done writing my text document?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:29] <aseigo>	hopefully at the end of its process it should be able to say "i'm finished, and the content can be found <here>"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:42] <colomar>	yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:52] <aseigo>	btw, this is sounding more and more and more like a scripted SLC
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:11:54] <Shaan7>	we need that to, lets say associate with the activity?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:00] <notmart>	as reference, the thing that made me remind, automator, is basically a ui for building flow charts for actions to do, it generates a script that can lauch application and invoke ipc similar to dbus to make the applications do what it's scripted
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:16] <aseigo>	notmart: yeah, was thinking of that too
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:18] <kallecarl>	notmart: so they stole ideas from MIT
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:29] <kallecarl>	and patented them prolly
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:37] <notmart>	kallecarl: their usual workflow no? :p
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:12:43] <colomar>	*gg*
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:13:57] <colomar>	But we can do that better than proprietary software ever can, because we all work together :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:15:44] <colomar>	I think we have some pretty good ideas about where we're going now. I guess we can start moving backwards from that to define what needs to be done
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:17:19] <colomar>	I assume that both UI design and technical design need to be done next
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:17:46] <colomar>	(okay, that wasn't exactly moving backward from the goal but... whatever)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:18:50] <colomar>	On the UI design side what we need is
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:00] <colomar>	a) A UI for initiating tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <notmart>	some example: http://www.automator.us/leopard/index.html
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <aseigo>	bwuahaha.i was just about to paste http://www.macosxautomation.com/automator/index.html
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <aseigo>	i don't think we need anything nearly that complex
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <notmart>	applications could provided a minimal standardize dbus interface for task control
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <aseigo>	but, yes ... 
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:04] <notmart>	like a task status, start (task name", param1, param2, ..)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <notmart>	status, busy, ready
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <notmart>	finished() signal
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo>	notmart: which we need for slc
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo>	implementation detail: it will be possible for people to start more than one of these things at the same time (or on different activities)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo>	which means we need a way to store the workflow steps while it is being done with an id that can be addressed by the application(s) involved
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <notmart>	aseigo: hmm, and that interface where would be? on the application or on slc, ie all in the activity manager daemon?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo>	notmart: i think the daemon should store the active workflows and orchestrate them
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] 	 * notmart hopes we won't walk out of the meeting sayng " i know what's needed: a new programming language!!" :p
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <Shaan7>	lol
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <rubentje1991>	:-D
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:05] <aseigo>	ok, designing out loud here: the applications that support Workflows would get a workflow object that connects to the daemon
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo>	the application can set the status of its job, and when it is complete, then the next bit of the workflow starts
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo>	all connecting, sharing, etc. tasks could be routed through SLC itself so that we neither duplicate functionality or have things you can do in workflows you can't in SLC, and vice versa
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo>	so SLC handles S, L, C tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] 	 * Shaan7 has to go early, sadly, 1AM here :/
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo>	applications handle content creation
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo>	Shaan7: thanks for coming!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <notmart>	Shaan7: gnight ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo>	kamd handles keeping state and stepping through the workflow
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <Shaan7>	gnite guys :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:06] <aseigo>	notmart: does that sound potentially sane?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:11] <colomar>	b) A UI for creating tasks
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:21] <aseigo>	if we insist that a workflow can only ever have one application active in it at a time, this becomes very simple
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:26] <notmart>	aseigo: hmm, maybe still not getting the details
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:36] <aseigo>	colomar: haha.. sorry, we just started running away on you to implementation ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:19:43] <notmart>	how you tell slc "start orchestrate this sequence of tasks"?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:20:06] <aseigo>	notmart: think of the workflow as a chain of applications or SLC actions to be done one after the other
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:20:29] <aseigo>	notmart: the workflow creation UI would assemble the workflow and send it to kamd
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:20:49] <aseigo>	notmart: kamd would then use that description as a state machine to step through .. "ok, launch this app to do that"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:13] <colomar>	Shaan7: gnite. Hope you'll be able to join the next meeting as well
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:18] <aseigo>	if an app supports workflows natively, it could connect with kamd to let it know its progress; otherwise kamd could watch PIDs
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:42] <colomar>	aseigo: No problem. for some reason Konversation stopped displying new messages and then spewed them out all at once
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:48] <rubentje1991>	would going backwards in workflow be possible
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:21:59] <rubentje1991>	?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:06] <colomar>	I was already thinking everyone had suddenly fallen asleep or loist consciousness
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:09] <aseigo>	rubentje1991: hopefully not in the first version
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:11] <aseigo>	colomar: lol
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:14] 	 * aseigo faints
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:18] <rubentje1991>	:-P
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:36] Quit	ksinny has left this server (Remote host closed the connection).
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:37] <aseigo>	rubentje1991: that's a significantly tricky thing to do because you need to keep versions of the data at each point and know which steps are not time reversable
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:49] <rubentje1991>	yep, i know it's not easy
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:51] <aseigo>	let's get "going forwards in time" working at least :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:22:54] <rubentje1991>	just keeping in mind: user = errors
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:00] <rubentje1991>	yes, for sure
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:08] <aseigo>	being able to modify a workflow in progress ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:13] <aseigo>	or add to it ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:23:41] <colomar>	yes. I agree with aseigo: Being able to go  backwards is the idea, but it's for later versions
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:00] <rubentje1991>	nice
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:07] <rubentje1991>	to know it's thought of
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:17] <aseigo>	colomar: do you think it would be useful to show what the current workflow is doing / will be doing?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:23] <rubentje1991>	step for step - we'll see what happen
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:42] <aseigo>	e.g. be able to check somewhere quickly to see that the workflow was "make an image, save to device, send to facebook" and currently it is at "save to device"?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:24:51] <rubentje1991>	hmm
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:00] <colomar>	Yes, I think that would be useful
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:02] <aseigo>	(possibly even able to request to add to it?)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:19] <colomar>	We'd just need a good place to show that. Maybe in the peek?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:20] <aseigo>	if so .. do you think extending SLC with another Workflow icon would make sense, shown only when "in" a workflow
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:34] <aseigo>	then it would always be available without having to do anything to applications
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:40] <colomar>	...or there, yes
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:42] <aseigo>	peek is another place it could be
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:52] <aseigo>	ok, so somewhere show something about "what the workflow you're in is"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:55] <rubentje1991>	peek from bottom
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:55] <colomar>	Yes, definitely somewhere global
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:25:59] <aseigo>	that will need some UI thoughts then
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:26:23] 	 * aseigo just a small wet dream ...
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:26:50] <aseigo>	god.. i switch activities and check the workflow button to remember what the hell it was i was doing again before i got interupted by that meeting about workflows? ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:01] <rubentje1991>	or multi touch gesture from some side
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:23] <notmart>	aseigo: wouldn't be more a features for jobs/notifications ui?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:24] 	 * aseigo will not have to remember anything ever again!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:35] <aseigo>	notmart: yes, it could also go there
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:42] <kallecarl>	where'd I put my tablet?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:47] <aseigo>	kallecarl: shit.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:52] <rubentje1991>	lost my remember-function in my head
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:27:59] <aseigo>	kallecarl: this is why the real world needs ctrl-f ;)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:28:23] <rubentje1991>	"plasma glasses"
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:28:43] <colomar>	kallecarl: Reminds me of the "Brain annex" you mentioned in the last meeting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:28:53] <rubentje1991>	instead of Google glasses
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:01] <rubentje1991>	much more interesting
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:17] <kallecarl>	not my idea ... As we may think (pdf somewhere); Vannevar Bush 1945
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:24] 	 * notmart notes that the dream would become even wetter when one will be able to transfer workflows between devices
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:37] <aseigo>	notmart: oh yeah
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:42] <kallecarl>	could even do it with touch
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:29:59] <aseigo>	colomar: i'm really in love with this idea now ... and so much to think about in terms of UI and implementation details ... do you think you have enough to start on UI mockups?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:31:06] <kallecarl>	we could start with one example implementation...it still seems like (at some level) there is a limited number of things that people do 
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:31:14] <colomar>	aseigo: Yes, I guess so.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:31:52] <kallecarl>	those tasks plus the ability to create or modify them should handle most of this
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:32:17] <colomar>	notmart: Yes, in an ideal world, you could seemlessly switch between devices
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:19] 	 * kallecarl has to go...thanks colomar for pulling this together. Would be nice to get some input from your uni work.
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:46] <colomar>	I guess this is material for a "defensive publication". We surely don't want somebody else to patent it
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:48] <kallecarl>	or your colleagues who are working in this area
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:33:58] <notmart>	colomar: +1
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:34:44] <colomar>	kallecarl: Yes, I'm starting to see a research project about this on the horizon... :)
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:37:37] <colomar>	Okay. So now I will try to get Bj?rn, some colleagues and anyone else who wants to help and draw up some mockups during the coming weeks. Can you do some more system design in the meantime or do you need the mockups for that?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:39:11] <aseigo>	activities, workflows, share/like/connect ... this is feeling like a more and more "complete wall" concept
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:39:37] <aseigo>	colomar: no, we can start on system design as many of the infrastructure needs are evident independent from UI presentation
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:39:58] <colomar>	great
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:06] 	 * aseigo has to go now ... thanks for keeping this rolling colomar! and thanks to everyone else who came!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:28] <colomar>	Thank you as well!
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:37] <notmart>	ok, awesome
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:40:41] <colomar>	Okay, so when should we meet the next time?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:41:05] <notmart>	aseigo: is this in line with the other ideas about slc you mentioned? is still valid?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:41:13] <colomar>	Sometime early next month maybe?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:41:52] <notmart>	maybe, probably the discussion is to be brought for a while in the ml topugh
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:42:10] <notmart>	colomar: could you do a quick recap of what we said in a ml thread ?
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:42:33] <notmart>	on there you could also post first rough mockups when you have
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:43:50] <colomar>	notmart: Yes, I can write a recap. Don't know when I'll find the time, though. I found that it usually takes me a few hours to do these, so it may take a few days until I find the time
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:44:20] <notmart>	that's fine
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:44:59] <notmart>	for now just a rough log dump is ok, then if you can summarize few points in next days, no hurry is fine
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:45:49] <colomar>	Yes. I'll send the log dump today
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:46:04] <colomar>	Olay. So, meeting officially closed
[Wednesday 16 January 2013] [20:46:36] <colomar>	Thanks to all of you who joined, i found this to be very productive!