[AG-TECH] RE: development directions

[Rick Stevens]

Jennifer do you have copies of these documents/proposals ?  I think we can
send them to you and that might help with the rev of doc for AG2.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Rick Stevens wrote:

> The retreat last spring was aimed at requirements capture for nextGen AG
> and proposed extensions (I recall we had several talks on functionality
> for the future).. additional discussions occured at GGF4 and 5 and during
> the WACE meeting.  That plus the SWOF proposal which includes discussions
> of AG2 requirements and the townhalls. ANL also proposed 2.0 functionality
> in our core doe project on g-to-g tools and in the nsf nmi proposal.
> 
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Jennifer Teig von Hoffman wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ivan,
> > 
> > Thanks, that's helpful. Here are a couple more questions and comments:
> > 
> > Ivan R. Judson wrote:
> > 
> > >>Given that design docs and a fully-functional alpha are due
> > >>out soon, we
> > >>seem to have run out of time for any substantial requirement
> > >>gathering
> > >>for AG 2.0. However, it does seem to me that there are a number of
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >Sure, first however, I think it's important to keep in mind that we are
> > >trying to *always* take recommendations or suggestions for requirements for
> > >the next version. We have had more than a year to gather requirements for
> > >2.0, including SCGlobal experiences. We should have a very rich set of
> > >requirements that represents good stuff.
> > >
> > Could you give us a sense of how these requirements were collected, and 
> > how decisions were made about what would go into the 2.0 version? To the 
> > best of my knowledge, the only formal exercise for gathering 
> > requirements were the "town hall" meetings on the AG, which seemed 
> > targeted only at technical users.
> > 
> > A tangent here: we SC Global 2003 folks are going to be meeting in early 
> > January to talk about our software requirements and timeframe.
> > 
> > >>    * Workspace docking (especially given interest in that
> > >>demo at SC02)
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >This will be present in the 2.0 alpha; that is the ability to author docked
> > >tools will be supported. In order for this to work we have created a Virtual
> > >Venues Client which is not a web browser. This client has a dock where
> > >docked tools live.
> > >  
> > >
> > Related to this: PowerPoint slides are a mundane issue, but a hot topic 
> > nonetheless (and have been the bane of the existence of many a node op). 
> > What's the plan for supporting distributed PowerPoint or something like 
> > it? Should the community be looking to migrate to Remote PowerPoint? 
> > (Shameless plug: there's a guide to RPPT available on the AGDP now.)
> > 
> > >>    * Visual indication of who is speaking at any given time
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >We will be able to support this easily; however it won't be present in the
> > >alpha. There is just too much too fast. Vote early and often to prioritize
> > >things for the beta release.
> > >
> > This is probably the most frequently-mentioned issue among casual users 
> > (assuming the network's all good and nobody's got weird camera angles).
> > 
> > >>    * Voyager
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Voyager is not part of the alpha; it is being worked on separately from the
> > >Access Grid and once 2.0 is ready for it's release it will be present in the
> > >Virtual Venues as a Application Service.
> > >
> > Any timeline available on the work on Voyager?
> > 
> > Also, a new question: Most things I've heard about the alpha at this 
> > point have been centered around the client. What's the plan for 
> > server-side stuff, ie venues server design/development tools?
> > 
> > - Jennifer
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>