Thinking of Wave in terms of “replacing” such as GMAIL (or even email, itself) is just silly.  Not every Internet communication needs to be (or even should be) as would be in Wave.  Traditional email, at the very least, should (and likely will) never go away.  Of this, I think there should be little fear or doubt.

Now, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a place—and a potent one, indeed—in our lives for such as Wave and its ineluctable variants.  It, too, will be useful, under the right circumstances.  In fact, from my admittedly only-cursory analysis of it to date, I’m thinking that what actually MAY be “replaced” by Wave, as a practical matter, is traditional “chat,” as we now know it (though traditional chat, mark my words, will continue to be around for years and years, too, no matter how good Wave ultimately gets).

Regardless, one thing about which we should all be clear in our minds is that we’re not talking about the mere replacing of anything, here.  Wave, for better or worse, seems very nearly of the nature of paradigm shift… and far be it from me to suggest that that’s, necessarily, a bad thing, here.

It does, however, come with pitfalls about which we should all be watchful, if not actually downright concerned.  For example, though it’s now coming out in articles (and/or rebuttals to such as I am posting here) that it’s likely to be user-configurable, initial writings about Wave touted the ability (and represented it as essential to Wave’s very way of operating) of all persons in a “wave” (or a thread) to be able to see, in real time, all others’ keystrokes, as they type.

Let me repeat the salient words of that, here:  AS. THEY. TYPE.

Think about that, please, for just a moment.  It’s a far larger problem than, perhaps, it initially seems.  Like how sausage is made (or, as some joke, like how laws are passed), some things in life may better be left something of a mystery to those who ultimately consume (or are regulated by) them; and, most importantly, solely at the creator’s option.

The ultimate impact and meaning to the reader of anything written would be inordinately influenced by said reader’s having been a witness to its creation.  If one is a thoughtful writer who doesn’t just blurt out every wayward thing which flits through one’s brain, then one is going to pause to think while one types, and back-up and delete and re-type, and whatever else behind-the-scenes activity goes into what ends-up being the finished written product.  If the reader were able to witness what the writer merely paused before writing; or actually did write, but then thought better of and either removed or changed to something else, then the bell of what the reader saw along the way cannot be un-rung; and the reader’s ultimate interpretation and understanding of the final written result will be indelibly affected in ways (even if not immediately obvious) more likely than not to be inherently bad for all concerned.

Now, if it’s true…

Contrinued at   http://www.greggdeselms.com/google_wave.html

Reply to this: comment | thread

Wow one heck of a comment. I have to say, Google are the innovators. They are big brother, but they are good for us at the same time.

—
Grant
refurbished netbook

Reply to this: comment | thread