[Sugar-devel] Buddy Tagging (Was: GPA Goals Status)

[Gary C Martin]

Hi Eben,

On 25 Jul 2009, at 16:26, Eben Eliason wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Gary C  
> Martin<gary at garycmartin.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, so I'd suggest my 1) above description of self tagging (a  
>> personal
>> profile), replaces the use cases for "Open groups". The "open  
>> groups" will
>> naturally form by users self tagging their interests, projects, or  
>> being
>> asked to enter some after school club name, etc.
>
> This is an interesting observation, but I think that open groups and
> self-tagging are still separate ideas and individually useful.
>
> Self-tagging: allows kids to identify themselves as anything they
> choose, allowing others to search for them by topic or interest. Any
> number of kids can apply the same tag at will, and there is no limit
> to the number or types of tags that one attributes to oneself, so the
> possibility of "lying" is present. These tags serve solely as an item
> to search on, and don't provide a structure for collaboration or
> sharing.

+1

> Open groups: allow kids to self-organize into groups in an open but
> constrained way. The formalization of the group means that, unlike
> tags, any group one is a part of will appear in a filter in the Groups
> view. The group creation process enables a single individual to send
> invitations to the initial group members, so that only one needs to
> actually type the group name (preventing mistakes). Moreover, while
> anyone in an open group may freely invite others to it (hence, the
> "open" name), no child outside the group can "self-tag" so as to
> become a member of the group without their knowledge. The formality
> (not the best word, but oh well) of the open group provides a
> structure for sharing and collaborating with group members.
>
> So, to conclude: self-tagging is great for search and discovery.
> Open-groups are a mechanism for kids to self-organize (eg. for class
> projects) in a structured way so that actions like "send to [my
> group]" or "share with [my group]" are possible.

OK, +1 you've convinced me Groups are a better way to expose what I  
was describing as tagging other buddies :-) If you've seen my new mock- 
ups already you'll see I'm shooting for something closer/simpler than  
your original "Open Groups" + "Closed Groups" with membership invites  
(allowing that as a possible future step).

>> 2) groups (was "closed groups"), where a child (or perhaps more  
>> likely a
>> teacher) creates a named group and assigns buddies to that name.  
>> Primary use
>> would be for filtering the Group view, and "Send to --> group"  
>> features.
>
> Yup, but as I say, I still think that both "open" and "closed" groups
> are needed. Given my outlining of their differences between
> self-tagging and open groups above, would you agree?

Yes agreed, I think. Though the membership invite processes,  
associated logic, and needed management UI seems a lot to go for all  
in one release cycle.

>> If you can find your previous group mock-ups, that would be great  
>> (been
>> googling, wiki searching, and Spotlighting my email but haven't  
>> found them
>> yet).
>
> Will do. I'll post them before the weekend is out.

Cool.

>> If the above is making sense for you, should I look at re-working the
>> specification (and adding some pictures), or create some new Groups
>> document?
>
> I'd be happy to see some suggestions for simplifying group creation/ 
> management.

If you didn't catch the previous list email, here's my 'Tomeu  
friendly' version of Groups, well at least as close as I can manage  
just now :-) It's basically a set of features to support local Groups  
with no invite process (aka buddy tagging using the Group UI metaphor):

	http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Proposals/Groups

I guess this is traditional IM 'buddy lists' type deal, as apposed to  
your full Facebook friending like feature set – though I think this  
can be a stepping stone to the full friending solution.

Regards,
--Gary