[IAEP] The Next Wave of Activity Sharing
alsroot at member.fsf.org
Sat Jul 25 05:31:42 EDT 2009
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:45:32AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> [adding IAEP to cc]
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:09, Bastien<bastienguerry at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Joshua Eddy <joshuageddy at gmail.com> writes:
> >> This is what Sugar Labs DC wants to bring to the table. For a more
> >> detailed description of this idea, please visit my blog:
> >> http://joshstechjournal.blogspot.com/
> > Nice idea! Thanks for sharing it.
> > I presume ideally the config options would offer a website to publish
> > to, along with the Jabber service.
> I love the idea of having a site for children to share their work, I
> think this is going to be really big hit for Sugar. Congratulations on
> taking this task.
> We have been already discussing this in #sugar during the last week
> with Jeff and Aleksey and several good ideas were shared, will be nice
> to put all our thoughts in common when we get to more detail.
Everyone is welcome to formalize thoughts on
> A somewhat minor concern I have with your proposal is that I'm not
> sure that just one global server will be enough for everybody. What
> about areas with local network but none or little internet access? If
> on the other hand deployments can set their own server as Bastien
> suggests, how would a child upload to the global one when connection
> conditions improve?
But global server doesn't except local servers
think about www.flickr.com - its global option but every community could
have local servers.
> One could imagine that the control panel would allow to set a list of
> servers and the Publish menu item becomes a submenu where you can
> select the server to upload to, but things get complicated fast with
> maybe not too much value.
> What I would propose instead, based on my experience, is to start by
> the very basics and build on that after getting some feedback from
> actual users. I see how a publish menu item in the activity palette or
> the journal makes it easier than having to go to a specific site in
> Browse, but if you restrict the modifications at first to Browse, then
> you can install your new activity version on any existing Sugar
btw, why just not using Browse, we already do this in case of ASLO
is there real need to add additional complexity to sugar UI
at least we could start using Browse, get feedback and add new features
to 0.88(if its necessary).
More information about the Devel