trob: (Default)
These really should have gone up a while ago, but given how I'm scrambling around to finish the school year (two more weeks!) I suppose it's not that big a surprise that it's been a long time coming.

Anyway, I've got some nice swim-lane diagrams for the project. Well, they're actually pretty ugly, but I do think they're illustrative. The first one is a somewhat simplified version of how comment requests currently work (as a general pattern of things), and the second one is how they would work if what I'm doing actually manages to take off...

The old way first:


And now the new way:



The big thing I'm trying to illustrate here is that what I'm working on adds some extra work, but it's purely synchronization work. The user never sees it, and if synchronization fails (for any reason) the system can fall back to local control. So if a sync call times out, or the sync service is down temporarily (or even forever), the system falls back to the old pattern seamlessly (if any of the blue arrowed steps fail, falling through to the next green arrow ensures continued functionality).

One thing of at least some concern to note here is that this specific implementation comes close to doubling bandwidth usage. The server the user connects to must both retrieve the conversation from and send it to remote systems in its entirety. It's pretty clear that this would be a lot better if it could send a request to the sync service asking only for updated comments/threads in order to cut down on that. Disqus, which I'm currently looking at, doesn't seem to do that, so it's not on the table now, but I'm pretty sure that long-term success depends on it being possible (and a number of other things, too, but one thing at a time).
trob: (Default)
Well, I've had this account for a while, and while I've been working on the project itself, I never got around to writing it up here. So, let's see if I can do this quickly.

Some context: I'm a graduate student at NYU focusing on social networks from both a sociology and a code-writing perspective. I'm fascinated by the ways we design our technological platform affect the way we act socially when dealing with mediated environments. I tend to favor technologically-simple (at least relatively speaking) interventions that have significant impact on the way we act.

I've been watching DW's development since the early days, and it's been a really fascinating project to me. One of the things I've been interested in is how it manages to convince people to move from LJ. This is, it turns out, a pretty tough proposition because moving platforms tends to cut you off in some ways from the social network (in the social, not technological, sense) you've built up. Some of your friends won't move, if only because some of their friends won't move.

Now, DW has done a tremendous amount with things like prominent OpenID support, and simple cross-posting in an attempt to reduce the friction involved in operating across the DW-LJ barrier, and that's a big deal and it's been quite well-executed. But going through my own LJ and seeing cross-posted stuff from DW, I found myself hesitant to click off to another site. Not because I don't like DW, but because... I don't know. There's a sort of comfort of being where you already are. So it was rare for me to read comments on a thread with a note to go to DW for discussion, and I'm not sure I ever actually contributed to those few discussions I read. Again, not for any technological reason: OpenID works just fine, after all, but for some sort of weird social reason.

This phenomenon isn't precisely new. YouTube was one of the first sites I know of to really take advantage of it. Embeddable video means you don't have to go anywhere to see what you want to see, and depending on who's estimates you're going with and what the video is, making a video embeddable rather than linking directly to YouTube and requiring users to watch it there can increase viewership by a factor of 10.

So, all of this is a long-winded way of saying: wow, I think DW is super cool, but there are some things I wish it magically did. And the biggest of those things is that I wish threads could cross-post between DW and LJ in the same way that posts can.

Which is when I realized that, from a purely technological standpoint, this isn't actually that hard a thing to do.

And that's what Banyan Speak is about: providing a simple method for discussions to be relatively portable. For you to be able to comment on a discussion right where you already are. If you cross-post something to multiple services, you want people to be able to participate in the discussion from all of those services, not require them to all come to one place.

Or, at least, I don't. I fully recognize that this isn't some sort of solution to all discussions ever on the internet, but it seems that it is a solution to some discussions in some places.

I've actually done quite a bit of code work already at this point, but I'm beginning to realize just how much more needs to be done. I'll hopefully be delving into more detailed technical stuff in some posts soon.
trob: (Default)
This is a test for iframe coding.



Depending on how LJ's coded to whitelist embeds, this might well fail.

Profile

trob: (Default)
Thomas Robertson

April 2010

S M T W T F S
    123
456 78910
11121314151617
18 192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 20th, 2025 12:17 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios