[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-active
Subject: Log for IRC meeting "Task-centered system: Concrete plans / task assignment"
From: Thomas Pfeiffer <colomar () autistici ! org>
Date: 2013-01-16 22:35:04
Message-ID: 33132140.InLDW2oDDf () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]
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
["Log task-centric planning.txt" (Log task-centric planning.txt)]
[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@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@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@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 Björn'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@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@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 Björn, 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!
_______________________________________________
Active mailing list
Active@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/active
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic