Brainstorming using Web 2.0

Posted by Posted on by

Only when there is a need to do a presentation, and the resources to be used are stored at different people’s terminals, and the deadline is a few hours ahead, do I begin to love the “Share” button in Zoho Writer. I can simply give “Read and Write” permission to my friends who are a part of the team and whose computer terminals, unfortunately are separated by a great distance from mine, and wait and watch while the ideas pour in. If ever there is a group of people who’ll be most benefitted by such Web-based applications, it’ll be the student community, who unfortunately cannot all afford a laptop to carry around.

Previously, when I had to do similar kind of work, I’ll have to send the document as the text of an e-mail, for the college terminal doesn’t have MS Office installed, contrary to most domestic PC terminals, and e-mail it to myself. Then open the e-mail and do the necessary formatting and take print outs. With web-based Word Processor, it becomes a lot less clumsy. “Share’ and more specifically “Read & Write” is now (exploited and loved) by several friends of mine for various purposes – college homework and otherwise where several heads, instead of one are involved.

Office 2.0 – The evolution of office applications

Posted by Posted on by

Let me try to define (my version of) Office 2.0.

Office 2.0 should offer an a la carte of collaborative applications as products/services from which users/businesses can choose from.

Key points to note in Office 2.0 are…

1. The users should be able to choose from a la carte of applications
2. The offerings should be available both as a product and as a service
3. All of these products/services should have collaboration features built-in

Let me explain each of these points….

1. a la carte of applications:
How many of us use all the components of MS Office for example that comes with just one price tag? In my case, I just use Word and a PPT. The rest like Excel etc are of no use. Even Outlook is of no use for me as I use Zoho Virtual Office. But we end up paying for the whole package which in my view is not right. For those who use all apps in office suit, probably it is worth the price tag. But for the rest of us, it is wasting money. Instead, I would prefer purchasing some other application I use – may be a Wiki.

In the next generation of Office applications, the vendor should provide a list of applications to choose from. The office suit should have apps like Word Processor, Spreadsheet, presentations viewer/builders, Messaging and Groupware, Wiki, RSS Readers, IM, CRM, Calling, Blogs etc. The list goes on. The end user should be able to select which apps he’ll need and just pay for those. This should be the model for Office 2.0 apps.

2. Product + Service Offerings:
It is not Product or Service. It should be Product and Service. Both product and service have their own advantages and disadvantages. The choice should be given to the end user to choose from either a product or a service. Ideally, it should be a product combined with a service will can offer powerful benefits.

3. Collaboration features Built-in:
Collaborative features are going to play a crucial role in the next generation office applications. This is very important that collaborative features are built into each and every application that is offered.

Office applications are no longer restricted to the ones that are defined by leading vendors in the market. Its time to redefine this.

Ismael Ghalimi has some very good posts on Office 2.0. I completely agree with him on the rules for Office 2.0.


Small Wonders

Posted by Posted on by

An oddity:

With Google Suggest turned on, if “How to” is entered in the search box, the first option it suggests is “How to tie a Tie”.

Now to the post. Ajaxian carried extract from a story about Web 3.0, carrying a couple of puns and names from animation world like Chuck Jones and fantasy things like ACME invisible ink. The author is quite funny, and writing about future or emerging technologies in the manner in which he’s done it is no mean piece of writing. And it’s only essays like these that are pointers to developers “who are toiling over an AJAX- and Ruby-powered social software product”, no matter how sceptical or irritated they feel about it.

“Some small teams of sharp people—people who once, perhaps, worked for those with dimmer visions—are now following their own muses and designing smart web applications.” With each passing day, there seems to be some AJAX powered application or the other hitting the new web, I can’t agree more. It’s actually the liberty that it offers, more people are lured into it everyday. A couple of years back, when sending a batch of image files to a lot of people, was synonymous with attaching every individual file and sending them as an e-mail. And one had to see to it that it wouldn’t exceed their storage limit, which was around 4 MB. Later on, Flickr happened and made the life of a lot of people, especially those people who spend their time distributing those odd and interesting pictures a lot simpler.

I wonder if the idea of a concept such as Flickr would have been a success if a Computer Conglomerate which sells a wide variety of software packages decided to develop such an application. Flickr wouldn’t be Flickr if it were that way. It wouldn’t be human enough. As mentioned, AJAX developers will have to “determine all the things a user might do, and wireframe the blessed moments of each possibility.” All those applications that use AJAX almost understand what you want. The tagging service, for instance, tries to predict what tag you can possibly use based on previous user’s experience. Gmail sorts the e-mails and their replies in conversation view, instead of making people fish around the Inbox or Mail folders. That is the advantage of having smart people who worked previously with boring projects. They’ve made the Web almost intelligent. That, precisely is the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. While Web 1.0 had answers that cater to the crowd, Web 2.0 has (or will have, in the near future) a solution that suits the individual user.

It will not be long before the Web tries to understand the possible mistakes that happen while tying a neck tie, and display a warning message in the screen that most probably it was wrong, based on the responses obtained from the previous users who tried to do it by the same method.

The Last Question

Posted by Posted on by

Some good soul had posted a link to the online version of Isaac Asimov’s “The Last Question” & thanks to the feed I subscribe to, came across it. Haa, what a story! Makes me want to read more of Asimov, particularly his Foundation Series.

Go sample this great short story of Asimov.

IT|Redux on Zoho Sheet

Posted by Posted on by

Here is a review of Zoho Sheet by Ismael Ghalimi on IT|Redux :

… I have been using the preview release for a couple of weeks and have been impressed by what it can do. I built a fairly sophisticated flight navigation log using Microsoft Excel and imported it into Zoho Websheet. The online spreadhseet was fully functional, including pretty complex mathematical formulas. The presentation was true to the original, beside the lack of support for merged cells and cell borders. But I got totally blown away when I exported the spreadsheet back to Excel: to my amazement, the exported document looked exactly like the original. …

Ismael, thanks for the great review.

And from now on, we have changed the name of our service from Zoho Websheet to Zoho Sheet, along the lines of Zoho Writer and Zoho Creator. Zoho Websheet basically consists of 3 words and is a bit difficult to pronounce when compared to Zoho Sheet.

Zoho Sheet Team

Easy->Trivial, Difficult->Easy, Complicated->Possible

Posted by Posted on by

Brainpipe has reviewed Zoho Creator. The below one was truly encouraging which the creator team strived for.

“Zoho Creator makes it remarkably easy to create very simple tracking applications, and parent-child relationships are handled so well you don’t even need to know what that means to use it.”

If you take any product feature it could fall under some range in the spectrum of – easy, difficult or complicated. Our objective, here at zoho, was to make the “easy” to “trivial”, “difficult” should be “easy”, and bring the impossible or “complicated” stuff “possible”. Every thing web based. In zoho creator context, it means

1. Creating simple forms or views in page should be “trivial”
2. Relating multiple forms or creating views across multiple data to build a custom page should be fairly “easy”
3. Transforming application data to show based on user needs and evaluating complicated workflows (rules and tasks), schedules, etc using a scripting language should become “possible”

We have long way to our Zoho Creator goals; we have just attempted to make it “trivial” for creating simple forms and views. And trying to make it “easy” to build custom pages. More to come..