[Design] SotM11: BoF meeting

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> On 12/09/11 00:42, Gregory wrote:
>
>> At SotM 11 we had a BoF informal meet-up outside.

Sorry I missed it.  Was it Saturday?

>> Need to know use cases
>
> Agreed - we just need to be careful to make it the use cases we want to
> support rather than all the use cases anybody on the talk list would like us
> to support.

Hmm, these probably come in concert with personas and audiences, right?

>> Define our audiences
>
> Agreed, which maps back to my point about which use cases we want to
> support.
>
>> Personas
>
> Don't understand what this means?

Typical user classes assigned to a fictional stereotypical user.
Closely linked to use cases and audiences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_%28marketing%29


>> Any stomach for changing the cartography
>> yes.

I'd prefer to see the discussion of cartography changes split from web
site changes.  We have switchable layers.  We have multiple style /
tile layers available.  And we have a process to consider new tile
layers.  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tiles


>> Default render has too much pressure on it

Can you expand on this for me, please?  I don't follow.

>> unlike MapQuest/Google, we have infinate layers
>
> No we don't. We may have the possibility of adding infinite layers, but we
> don't actually have them. Of course literally speaking infinite, or any
> large number, is probably a bad idea anyway.
>
>> Dynamic POI layer?

For what?  It would have to tie into use cases / personas / audience.
And I see this as "cartography" probably better as a separate issue.
As two examples: popup POI restaurant reviews are a no-go.  popup POI
quick editing might be cool, but now we're talking about integrating a
vapourware tool with our web site.  We can make the web site awesome++
and the new tool awesome++ separately, then see how we combine them.

> Not sure we have the technology/resources to support this, but happy to be
> proved wrong.

>> Default map has to be more detailed, distinct from  all the other online
>> maps

Cartography again.  Separate issue.  Show me the tiles.  ;-)  The
community loves great new visualizations.  Show us your better
cartography.  No portion of the OSM web site blocks your development /
improvement of the cartography.

> Has to be? I think you misspelt "the sample of people present thought it
> ought to be".
>
> Then again I would argue that it's already more detailed than just about all
> other online maps, at least in areas where we have rich data.