David Faught <dave_faught <at> yahoo.com>
2005-10-04 20:33:02 GMT
Refering to Howard Stearns' blog entry at http://www.wetmachine.com/itf/item/334 which describes a
very nice analogy for TeaTime, here is another analogy that might provide some fodder for further
discussion, or maybe not.
In a different but related vein to what Howard describes, my teenage daughter spends lots of her computer
time using AIM, with several independent but concurrent conversations with her friends. There is no
shared base state here, other than direct knowledge of the people on the other ends of the conversations,
so the emphasis is on the content of the conversations. Each conversation is truly independent of the
others, except where the conversants choose to share information across conversations.
From my daughter's point of view this is a one-to-many relationship, except that each of the many is
separate and the conversations distinct. There usually is, in fact, a web of conversations as each of the
conversants may have their own set of other friends connected.
This is a high overhead situation, and not particularly adept at sharing one idea with multiple
conversants, although much better than the telephone conversations of my teenage years. It is, on the
other hand, very good at isolating multiple concurrent conversations and thereby dealing with each
conversant's individual characteristics and, at least somewhat, security issues.
So, I guess one question is, how does TeaTime-based messaging deal with multiple conversants with varying requirements?