[Sugar-devel] [Design] Ad-hoc networks - New Icons

[Gary C Martin]

On 11 Aug 2009, at 12:08, Peter Robinson wrote:

>>>> 2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>:
>>>>> I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network  
>>>>> to
>>>>> distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is
>>>>> the mesh
>>>>> icon appropriate? Or something completely new?
>>>>
>>>> I think new icons would be best, to distinguish from the mesh. I
>>>> think
>>>> we can expect mesh support again soon ;)
>>>
>>> From the user POV they are the same I guess. A local network, that
>>> does
>>> not need any infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Though, the mesh on the XO is handled automatically, the ad-hoc
>>> network
>>> requires user interaction to create it. I wonder if we ever will  
>>> see a
>>> user using both (not at the same time) on the same machine. To think
>>> about the visual clash, at least.
>>
>> I do wonder if the ad-hoc network should actually be being auto
>> magically created, if the owner is not associated with an available
>> AP, much like the mesh was. We would agree a standard network name  
>> (as
>> did olpc-mesh), that way there is a minimum of user required
>> interaction and any Sugar users in range would auto connect to the
>> same network for collaboration.
>
> The problem with that would be that you'd have a number of devices
> suddenly sharing the same network. If your in a group of users unlike
> in the mesh environment only one person/device would create this.


Apologies for being technically naive;

1). I think if using the same SSID and channel number in ad-hoc mode,  
devices will work together. There's no security, authentication, the  
wireless NICS are all just randomly broadcasting and listening.

Tomeu: If has made it into one of the XO builds, I can run tests next  
week (3 XOs + 1 Mac).

2). Alternatively if I'm wrong about 1, how about a behaviour that  
auto create a default ad-hoc network if it's not visible already, and  
joins one if it is? If the creator goes away/offline, the network  
obviously fails and one of the other clients creates it again (after  
short random delay), and the rest re-auto join.

Thinking about the benefits of a manual ad-hoc process; it does allow  
a (technically aware) teacher to create a named wireless network on  
their machine for their class to join, thereby helping isolate  
different working groups of students. Perhaps also when a class is  
split into working groups, the team leader of each could be instructed  
to create a named ad-hoc network for the rest of their group to use  
(though not sure how able our demographic would be for such an  
operation, probably 9-12 year olds would be capable).

Think I'd still much prefer the ad-hoc as mesh-like auto set-up  
behaviour, it's better for out target demographic, reduces UI, and  
lets collaboration 'just work' when no AP is in use.

Regards,
--Gary