From The Complete Guide to Google Wave: How to Use Google Wave
Contents |
Competition with Email
I respectfully disagree with this statement: "While in practice Google Wave isn't a direct replacement for email". It may be true today with Wave in two servers, and non-federated, but it is coming. It will replace email. --Bgudauskas 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- It will cannibalize some of the work of email, as even google docs has, but it's not a 'direct replacement'. This is also a living, evolving document that describes the current state of Google Wave. As such, if additional servers and federation brings on the email-pocalypse then this can be changed. But right now, it simply doesn't compete. --Ljn 22:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Wave will ever, actually replace Email. As it stands, basic Email has far more functionality than the average user needs, wants, or would use. Why would they bother to learn their way through something that only offers more options they'll never use? I think Wave will eventually end up occupying a space outside of (but probably alongside of) Email. --Terry 03:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, this point is debatable. I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't say whether or not Wave will ever actually replace email. (Though I do think it will cannibalize much of email's functionality.) What I meant by my statement is that email is based on a messaging paradigm, Wave on a document-collaboration paradigm, so therefore, Wave isn't a direct parallel to email. I will change the word "replacement" to "parallel," thanks for helping me clarify my point. --GinaTrapani 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The danger of heavy dependence on Wave is the possible points of failure are much higher than with email. 1) The server can be damaged, compromised, etc 2) Connections to the server are required and can also be damaged. For 10 people working on one document that would be 11 points of possible failure. I may be missing the fact of redundant servers and mirroring data locally. But email's strength is simplicity and multiplicity of copies that ensures redundancy. There are points of vulnerablility with email, but with Wave the risks seem much higher.--B Jones 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should add another column to your table, labeled "Gmail." A category of "email" is so general and almost impossible to address across all of the different platforms. Some of the criteria you labeled as "No" in the email column would be "Yes" if you were referring to Gmail.--Barbara Schroeder 14:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Embedding content in email
"You can't embed rich content like maps, photo slide shows, or video clips in the body of an email. "
I really do have to disagree with this statement. Email is not a text based medium anymore, I'm sure you're aware that email, as well as most popular clients have moved to rich html content.
These days, emails are sent as web pages. So, anything that you can see on the web, you can see in an email. Including web2.0 applications; maps, photo slide shows, or video clips. Anything that you can do with a web-page, you can do with an email. Even implement registration forms to otherwise invisible servers.
But, that's just my opinion. I may not have understood the statement correctly. :-)
- Yes, of course HTML-capable email clients are widespread and popular, but much like older browsers not all of them handle HTML and Ajax the same way. Have you ever embedded a poll or YouTube clip in an email, send it to an Outlook, Eudora, or Thunderbird user, and gotten that person to vote or watch it without leaving their email client? If so, hats off to you. That kind of thing is just not accessible to humans, IMO. As a user I'd never attempt to embed a Google map and email it, because I'd have no idea how it would render on the other end. I'd just send a link that required the recipient to launch a proper web browser. That bullet point used to read "There's no easy way to embed rich content..." so perhaps I should roll it back to that.--GinaTrapani 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. Your table for "The Email Way" and Rich Content should not say "Attachments" only - since HTML can bring a lot of richness beyond simple text. Mckoss 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I think HTML email is totally inconsistent and therefore not as useful, it does allow for some of this functionality, and I failed to mention that. I will add this to the table, thanks. --GinaTrapani 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the diff displaying the changes suggested above. Thanks all. --GinaTrapani 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was fast! Looks good. - Mckoss 21:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"While certain email clients like Gmail or Microsoft Outlook can render rich formatting with images and colors and display attached files inline, there's no consistency among all email clients. No one's email always looks the same."
Do you think Wave will solve this problem? As long as there is one Google's implementation it's easy to keep consistency. But the system is supposed to be open, so I expect a multitude of clients. Even Google showed a pure text client during their I/O presentation. I believe, as soon as Wave becomes popular, the consistent presentation is gone.
--Rafal 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"Email not affiliated with any organization"
That sentence is largely correct but technically incorrect. The email protocols were developed by committees affiliated with the IETF. The email protocols have been iteratively improved year after year, through work done by committees affiliated with the IETF. The IETF is an organization. Hence it is incorrect to say that email protocols are unaffiliated with any organization.
- Good point. The IETF is a standards body, not a private corporation. I will clarify. Here's the diff. --GinaTrapani 20:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If the IETF had not developed the email protocols we use today the email world would have remained stuck in the bad old days of a hundred different email protocols. Each of those email protocols were developed by each vendor of networking software. cc:Mail, ..etc..
"Email is hard for quotes and group discussion"
This appears to have been written by an Outlook user. There's a well established convention for quoting in email and usenet and good email readers understand and make it easy. Just because Outlook screwed this up doesn't mean email can't do it.
Email mailing lists are one of the oldest forms of group collaboration. Huge amounts of the web are built using these as a discussion tool. They're still around because they work and they're a perfectly low tech mechanism for this.
It's not yet clear to me that Wave works any better than email or has a hope in hell of replaceing it.
- Most users, even savvy ones, fall into bad habits like top-posting. It's not just Outlook users. --GinaTrapani 20:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Grammar Edits
At the bottom of the Email Problems section, an extra space exists before a comma.
While in practice Google Wave's purpose isn't a direct parallel to email's , understanding email's problems given the capabilities of the modern web is a good starter framework for understanding what Google Wave can do.
- Thank you! Fixed. --GinaTrapani 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: The History of The Founders of Google Wave
Google Wave was created by the same two software enginenees who created Google Maps; Lars and Jens Rasmussen. In 2003, the Rasmussen brothers set off on an ambitious project: to map Australia with satellite images. When tech giant Google learned of their ambitious project, they instantly hired them on creating what we all know as Google Maps.
Google maps was an amazing feet in booth the scene that you could see your own backyard, and the amazing and innovative way of using JavaScript and other browser based scripts to deliver these images at the speed of light.
Spam?
In the Email's Problems section I am missing the biggest one: spam. This doesn't seem to be addressed by Wave. At least not yet. But it should not be forgotten/ignored.
