<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Walter Bender <<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
It is very same page I am talking about, but I had made a template<br>
that is used by that page (Scott is the most recent one to have edited<br>
the template) and that is where I'd suggest we add the field for<br>
collaboration (and as was suggested, Journal use). I'll take a first<br>
pass, but as was pointed out, we have a lot of testing to do to before<br>
we can say anything very meaningful regarding the scale of the<br>
collaborations possible.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This sounds like a nice thing to indicate, once we are comfortable enough with the state of connectivity.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
In regard to the Journal, I thought we should indicate two bits of<br>
information: (1) does the activity record an entry in the Journal? and<br>
(2) does the activity put data objects into the Journal (as per<br>
Record, for example). Comments?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This seems too low-level to me. Can we define a set of criteria for calling an activity properly "sugarized", and slap a "sugarized" sticker (sweetness guaranteed!) on those that are? It should include the basics which all activities are expected to have, like standard toolbars, journal integration, drag'n'drop support, and maybe a few other things. If automation tools advance far enough, we might even be able to run activities through that to verify these requirements.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(As a side note, point (2) about data objects will be made irrelevant when the new Journal designs are integrated, so we definitely shouldn't expose that.)</div><div><br></div><div>- Eben</div><div>
<br></div></div></div>