On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 18:05:09 -0400
Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> wrote:
> At 12:15 AM 2002-07-07 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
>> Nick Simicich wrote:
> If you are scheduling people, you need buy-in....unless they work for
> you and you can order them to go. So automated scheduling simply does
> not work across organizations.
Its actually not a question of working per se, but of making the process
easier. I've done a fair bit of inter-corporation work where meetings
have had to be scheduled with people from five other companies (in one
particular project). At the time I had read-only access to their
calendars (I could see the free times, just not what occupied the filled
times) and so I picked meeting times that "fit". This worked extremely
well. It didn't inject things perforce into their calendar, but it did
allow me to better pick slots that would actually work and thus avoid
the endless rounds of, "What time is free for you, Oh that doesn't work
for me."
> Microsoft has even turned off active X and Java by e-mail by
> default.
Unfortunately I think the market may have already decided in our
absence. I abhor transmittable executable content, but I suspect that
we're going to see, for instance, more collaboration media forming which
are centered on executable content transfer or close analogues (eg
XML/RPC). Much like Chuq has started thinking about how IM-based
list-type services might work and might operate, the whole executable
content thing is definitely hanging out there as a possible ubiquitous
form in the very near future.
Lists will again either adapt or die.
Which then raises the other big sea-change coming: when fora (list or
web or whatever) are explicitly multimedia and text is not the default.
What then? Its gonna happen. The huge number of people who can't type,
don't want to learn to type, and just don't care are going to force it
by simple rule of numbers -- and in exactly the same way they forced
HTML mail etc.
> Again, I can see absolutely zero advantage to delivering such tripe in
> e-mail --- sending a URL would be superior in all cases I can imagine.
Even outside of the standard problem of, "I don't have access to a web
server to host it!", there are significant security issues to this
approach, especially at a corporate level. Sending a confidential file
as an email file is near trivial and automatic in most companies,
crypted or otherwise (sadly). Getting the same file hosted on a server
and sending the appropriate access controls etc is a corporate nightmare
requiring policy decisions, security team review, IS support and buy-in
etc etc etc.
As public list operators we don't see this very often, but then not all
lists are public (eg I've run crypted lists for confidential projects
between multiple companies).
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
