W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Tools methodology

From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:21:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4C51D4C9.4040708@w3.org>
To: Stephanie Rieger <steph@yiibu.com>
CC: Katrin Verclas <katrin@mobileactive.org>, atanu@srijan.in, public-mw4d@w3.org
Collaboration is obviously welcome. But the point is not to make a 
directory of tools (yet) but to come with a methodology of analysis and 
classification that enable people to select the right thing for their 
purpose. What mobileactive is doing is great, but i believe we need to 
go a step further. This is the aim of this work.
Then obviously, the mobileactive directory will be welcome to adopt the 
methodology as a way to structure your directory.
This is the way people usually work at W3C and in standardization bodies 
in general. They are coming with their own solution for a problem 
addressed by the group. Each individual solution usually has very good 
points, and then the gathering of all good points from all solutions 
make a better final standard for all. Here it is the same, you have 
adopted a way to sort and structure your directory, and perhaps a method 
to analyze your tools. Great, this would be a great contribution. I know 
a couple of other directories of m-tools, and i'm also aware of people 
not really understanding differences between some tools. So we all have 
potential contribution to this work.
For me clearly a first step is to:
1-look at the different m-repository and see what are the criteria used 
for the sorting
2-look at the MW4D roadmap and see the different dimension we identified

that would give us a good start. I will develop this tomorrow in another 
mail
Cheers
Steph

Le 29/07/2010 19:47, Stephanie Rieger a écrit :
> Thanks Katrin for the reminder and URL. Collaboration sounds great to me!
> I'm new to the group however so will have to defer to Stephane in
> regards to specifics. I'm not clear what the scope for cooperation is in
> regards to the group's deliverables.
>
> Will you be participating in the call on Monday?
>
> Steph
>
> http://yiibu.com
> Yiibu: Lovingly crafted mobile experiences
>
> +44 (0)7957 651 177
> Twitter: stephanierieger
>
> On 29 Jul 2010, at 18:20, Katrin Verclas wrote:
>
>> Just so that you all know - we have a growing number of mobile tools
>> for dev, mobile media, etc in our mDirectory. Currently 82, with more
>> being added daily:
>>
>> http://bit.ly/cqDD4p
>>
>> Are you planning on reinventing the wheel? Would it not make more
>> sense to collaborate here?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 29, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Atanu Garai wrote:
>>
>>> When we discuss about tools as software application, I think it is
>>> important to discuss about content and service associated with it.
>>> This will be particularly important when we discuss about the
>>> applications of these tools for specific domains and target audience.
>>> I am sure this was in your mind but would like to make this objective
>>> more explicit.
>>>
>>> Atanu
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-mw4d-request@w3.org <mailto:public-mw4d-request@w3.org>
>>> [mailto:public-mw4d-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Rieger
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:46 PM
>>> To: public-mw4d@w3.org <mailto:public-mw4d@w3.org> Group
>>> Subject: Tools methodology
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've volunteered to begin thinking about the Wiki's tools section and
>>> how best to develop a criteria to assess the suitability of each tool.
>>> For reference, here is what is currently posted on the Wiki in
>>> regards to the goals of the overall activity.
>>>
>>> "It is critical to develop a real landscape analysis, investigating
>>> the exact domain of applicability of the different tools, how they
>>> relate one to another, what is their target audience, what are their
>>> requirements for usage, etc. As part of these investigations, the
>>> growing importance of social networks such as twitter or facebook in
>>> developing countries and their potential roles in social development
>>> will be studied. This document will define a methodology to review
>>> mobile tools available for the different technologies, develop a
>>> landscape analysis based on the definition of taxonomy or matrix of
>>> factors to consider to select a tool. The document will also identify
>>> gaps, in software, features or standardization, that prevent more
>>> people from deploying content and services."
>>> [http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/Mw4d_tools
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Stephane has suggested I post this to the group for comments. We also
>>> plan to discuss this further on Monday during the meeting. The list
>>> of assessment criteria below is preliminary...just to get the
>>> conversation started.
>>>
>>> Category - SMS, MMS, mobile web, voice, service etc.
>>>
>>> Cost to the organisation - One-off cost, subscription, cost of
>>> associated tools or components etc.
>>> License - Is the tool (or aspects of it) open source? Are there
>>> license restrictions?
>>> Roadmap - Are new features planned? Is the tool relatively future-
>>> proof from a technology point of view?
>>> User base - Is the tool proven? How many existing users/deployments?
>>> Are there case studies available?
>>>
>>> Ramp-up - Time required to set up, specific technology required such
>>> as a certain type of server, a Mac etc Skills - Required technology
>>> skills, programming languages, other skills to operate or deploy the
>>> tool.
>>> Maintenance - Resources required to maintain the tool or service
>>> including time and personnel, frequency of maintenance etc.
>>> Documentation - Is documentation available? Is it comprehensive? It
>>> is multi-lingual? Online or offline? Who is the target audience?
>>>
>>> Target audience - What audience can be served using this tool (age,
>>> demographic, region etc.) Reach - Projected reach of the tool. Are
>>> there external factors that will affect reach of this tool
>>> (geographic, language, cost, required
>>> partnerships?)
>>> Cost to end-users - If the output of this tool requires interaction
>>> by end-users, what are their costs? (hard costs, time required for
>>> users to learn interface, language, specific mobile platform etc.)
>>>
>>> Some of these factors already seem to overlap so feedback would be
>>> welcome. Reminder as well that this list is incredibly preliminary!
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Steph
>>>
>>> http://yiibu.com
>>> Yiibu: Lovingly crafted mobile experiences
>>>
>>> +44 (0)7957 651 177
>>> Twitter: stephanierieger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Katrin Verclas
>> MobileActive.org
>> katrin@mobileactive.org <mailto:katrin@mobileactive.org>
>> *
>> *
>> skype/twitter: katrinskaya
>> (347) 281-7191
>>
>> A global network of people using mobile technology for social impact
>> http://mobileactive.org <http://mobileactive.org/>
>>
>

-- 
Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
France
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 19:22:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 July 2010 19:22:00 GMT