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

[Simon Schampijer]

On 08/11/2009 02:35 PM, Gary C Martin wrote:
> 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).

I like that group work. I always thought of the ad-hoc network being 
something a group of kids could connect to for a group work. Not 
something the whole school would connect to.

> 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.

I wonder if the ad-hoc network will scale up to that number of users :/ 
Though I am not an expert in this area. Maybe Daniel has some more 
insights on this topic.

Regards,
    Simon