Difference between revisions of "Talk:AWG Use Cases"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* The figures given in the "Create a system" line are not consistent with the figures given in [[Project_Motivation]]. They don't have to be the same of course, since the initial target might be just an early step in the direction of the ''scary numbers''. If this is the case though, then all the numbers should ideally be scaled proportionally, unless a reason is given for disparate scaling. --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 04:08, 26 September 2007 (PDT) | * The figures given in the "Create a system" line are not consistent with the figures given in [[Project_Motivation]]. They don't have to be the same of course, since the initial target might be just an early step in the direction of the ''scary numbers''. If this is the case though, then all the numbers should ideally be scaled proportionally, unless a reason is given for disparate scaling. --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 04:08, 26 September 2007 (PDT) | ||
** I've now replaced the 500m/500k which lacked justification with a reference to those in [[Project_Motivation]]. --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 04:17, 27 September 2007 (PDT) | ** I've now replaced the 500m/500k which lacked justification with a reference to those in [[Project_Motivation]]. --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 04:17, 27 September 2007 (PDT) | ||
* Replaced the reference to "preserving DRM" by "retaining permissions", since DRM is a different concept entirely (despite the meaning of the words in D.R.M.). SL does not use DRM to implement permissions, as Lindens have explained. --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 06:13, 9 October 2007 (PDT) | |||
* Replaced "preserving" by "evolving" in the reference to the micropayment economy, because the sentence was ambiguous (did it mean preserving micropayments, or preserving the economy?) and because the economy certainly won't be be locked in statis, but will evolve as the platform evolves. The word "evolve" does at least convey the idea of short-term stability, which is what the original line probably intended. --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 06:13, 9 October 2007 (PDT) | |||
== System Scope == | == System Scope == | ||
Revision as of 05:13, 9 October 2007
Strategic Scope
- The figures given in the "Create a system" line are not consistent with the figures given in Project_Motivation. They don't have to be the same of course, since the initial target might be just an early step in the direction of the scary numbers. If this is the case though, then all the numbers should ideally be scaled proportionally, unless a reason is given for disparate scaling. --Morgaine Dinova 04:08, 26 September 2007 (PDT)
- I've now replaced the 500m/500k which lacked justification with a reference to those in Project_Motivation. --Morgaine Dinova 04:17, 27 September 2007 (PDT)
- Replaced the reference to "preserving DRM" by "retaining permissions", since DRM is a different concept entirely (despite the meaning of the words in D.R.M.). SL does not use DRM to implement permissions, as Lindens have explained. --Morgaine Dinova 06:13, 9 October 2007 (PDT)
- Replaced "preserving" by "evolving" in the reference to the micropayment economy, because the sentence was ambiguous (did it mean preserving micropayments, or preserving the economy?) and because the economy certainly won't be be locked in statis, but will evolve as the platform evolves. The word "evolve" does at least convey the idea of short-term stability, which is what the original line probably intended. --Morgaine Dinova 06:13, 9 October 2007 (PDT)
System Scope
- Tillie, I liked the suggestion you attached to the Guild Wars "Observer Mode" use case, so when I added my SL-specific case for it in Interactive TV, I followed it up with your idea as another use case, Non-Interactive TV. --Morgaine Dinova 14:59, 26 September 2007 (PDT)
Extended Capabilities Viewer
Added section with a few examples. Saijanai 09:20, 7 October 2007 (PDT)
Game clients
Added section with a list of typical attributes for this class. --Morgaine Dinova 05:49, 9 October 2007 (PDT)
Some possible futuristic scenarios
- Added a Use Case for the Observer Mode of Guild Wars, which is effectively "interactive TV" and hence could be massive. --Morgaine Dinova 04:49, 26 September 2007 (PDT)
- This feature is critical when it comes to privacy. Currently you see all other avatars in range. Might be a problem for some locations, think of sex clubs. Another example could be education etc, eg. classes. Many classes held in SL are being paid by the students. For these cases there must be a possibility to lock out observers. --Tillie Ariantho
- Seconded, very strongly. Privacy becomes an extremely important matter as we scale this across the big bad world, and it's more than just a matter of avoiding embarrassment ... in many places it's a matter of life and death. It requires serious consideration within the new architecture. --Morgaine Dinova 13:53, 26 September 2007 (PDT)