On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg
<jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If it is good
software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.
This is the key point.
Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
have it for ourselves? What's Flow's killer feature for us?
(I asked this before.)
When I sat in on a talk about Flow at Wikimania a year or so ago, the
two that made me sit bolt upright as things we can't easily do with
wikitext:
* potential to work with Notifications ("tell me when anyone replies
to this discussion") without needing individual pings or relying on
spotting one talkpage edit in a busy watchlist - especially since on
some pages a comment may come two years later.
* inter-wiki or intra-wiki integration of multiple-venue discussions
rather than several parallel pages and potentially parallel
discussions (not a very frequent issue, but a messy one when needed;
Pine notes this below)
The more nebulous one that has great promise is using Flow for
workflows/processes (which falls out naturally from the integration of
discussions) - this is what Erik describes below as tags, though I
think that terminology is new to me.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk