Re: User stories for Social API

> On 4 Feb 2015, at 06:22, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote:
> 
> Per our discussion on the telecon this afternoon, I've posted a first draft of some user stories on the wiki here:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories>

Thanks that is very helpful.

> 
> I've tried to capture in narrative form with named actors the requirements from the Requirements page. I've tried to keep the user stories short (~5 steps), and keep them clustered around an functional theme. 
> 
> This has usually been successful with the exception of the Groups user story, which has about 11 steps.
> 
> I also tried to capture some developer stories, to give an indication of how I think developers will use the standard and the APIs that implement it.
> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Proposed_developer_stories <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Proposed_developer_stories>
> 
> I think it's probably worthwhile to keep these to make evaluating API proposals easier.
> 
> Please:
> Feel free to update the user stories.

So all the user stories currently could be user stories for totally siloed social networks.  
I call that social networks. What we want to build here is the social web.

We could extend the user stories to make them more clearly cross organisational.
For example « Following a Person » has Delano and Beth meet each other at company 
meetings. What about rather they meet each other at a conference, instead? They never 
heard of each other or their respective companies so they  exchange cards ( containing 
their URI as a QR code perhaps ). Next day  they scan it into their computer, ,..

I believe that cross organisational stories have to be no different from inter organisational stories.
Inter organisational stories must  just be special cases.  So one could also make this a general design
decision: that all actors always belong to different unrelated organisations when this is not mentioned
explicitly.  Explicitly specifying organisations then would help create a better imaginary space
in which WG members can find themselves. But for some stories it may just be tedious to specify
it each time - hence the default assumption of non same organistional belonging. 

What does that mean not belonging to the same organisation? Essentially: that the only thing that
allows the actors to communicate is the protocol and standards we are defining here: no other
background knowledge such as knowledge of the software stack, ownership of the data, internal 
behind the back handshakes, etc… can be allowed. That is all too easy when you build a siloed 
application.

> Try to keep them roughly within the boundaries I've defined above (narrative form, ~5 steps, clustered around a theme)
> Remember that API != UI. It's probably bad to assume that users will "push a button" or "go to a Web page".
> Talk to me by email before reorganizing the entire page to meet your personal idea of "user story".
> Don't add votes yet. These user stories are still in flux and it's going to be awkward if we have to work around your vote.
> Thanks,
> 
> -Evan
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/