Alternative to Create a new wireless network

[John Watlington]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO
> 1.5 (1) (2), I've been thinking about this functionality, the change
> in UI behavior and perhaps the decrease in usability and I don't like
> it. I believe it is clunky to have children create their own
> networks..Who designates who creates the network? Why do I have to
> join that network? Why can't I make my own network and have them join
> me, etc.. All of this is aside from the technical limitations of which
> channel does my network get created on. Does the user specify channels
> 1, 6, or 11 when creating the network, or does the channel randomly
> get set? If randomly set, how do we avoid channel overlaps and
> interference.
>
> To ease all of this and maintain a similar UI, what if we:
>
> -Create three faux "Mesh Channel #" icons in the Network view
> -When the child wants to join a mesh network they will select one of
> the networks
> -Upon selection: the XO will: 1. Scan to see if that ad-hoc network
> already exists and 2. if it does not exist the XO will create the
> network allowing other children to join it.
>
> The one pitfall of this idea, and I'm not sure how much of an issue
> this would be, is also the pitfall of ad-hoc networks...when the
> initiator of the ad-hoc network leaves the network fails.

I don't understand why you say this.   AFAIK, this is not the expected
behavior of ad-hoc networks.

> When the
> network has a respective name it is a bit more obvious when that
> person has left and the reason why the network has failed, this would
> not be the case given the anonymity of a "Mesh Network #." A more long
> term solution to this problem may be for the XO to sense the loss of
> the initiator and recreate the network. In this case, the first XO to
> sense the loss of the network after some period of time would check if
> another XO has already setup the network, if not the XO would create
> the network or join the new one if it already exists.
>
> Aside from the one pitfall, I think it would be really beneficial to
> maintain the same UI and appearance of functionality. Further
> development in this area may also help us get MPP back, at least at
> the software level.

There is no question that we want to avoid changes in this UI ---  
this is
already one of the more complex actions that we expect teachers/students
to do.   Changing it mid-stream would be very confusing.

wad