Re: Tools methodology

Great, Stephane - thanks for clarifying that - this is helpful.  We  
have a certain set of data fields for each record but the mDirectory  
is a database and listing, not a methodology for helping people chose  
the right tools.  It;s simply information about tools with specific  
data points and our own classification scheme based on features,  
platforms, countries deployed, and target issue areas.

That said, we are publishing more and more tool comparison matrices -  
mhealth in a box will be the next one that we are releasing shortly  
that are not just descriptive but analytical.  These matrices are not  
evaluative per se as needs and goals of organizations in our network  
vary greatly, but help organizations navigate comparable tools by  
delving deeper into functions and features.

Looking forward to this conversation - this could be very useful all  
around.

Katrin


On Jul 29, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Stephane Boyera wrote:

> 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


Katrin Verclas
MobileActive.org
katrin@mobileactive.org

skype/twitter: katrinskaya
(347) 281-7191

A global network of people using mobile technology for social impact
http://mobileactive.org