[Design] Jabber in Chandler

[Ted Leung]

On Dec 2, 2005, at 3:39 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:

> So again, how can IM support what we already have? Better  
> scheduling? We've always thought it would be nice to have an IM- 
> style conversation at the bottom of events so that people could  
> just add their $0.02 about availability without having to clog up  
> Inboxes with lots of "Can make that. Can't make that" emails. Maybe  
> it would be useful for all items to have "conversations" at the  
> bottom.
>
> Any other ideas? They don't have to be fully-fleshed out down to  
> the workflow and implementation details. At a high level, where do  
> people feel like the easy-casual 1-on-1 conversation style of IM  
> would greatly enhance user experience (in the context of what we  
> plan to do in 0.7 and what we have already.)
>
> (This is not necessarily for 0.7)

Generally speaking, I can imagine wanting to establish communications  
anytime another person is involved.  So items that involve people,  
events, tasks, so for are all natural candidates for wanting some  
kind of communication, whether that be asynchronous (today's e-mail)  
or synchronous (IM, Voice, Video, etc).   This is one of the reasons  
that I am so interested in getting contacts, "People" into the system  
because that's where I can put all the ways that I might communicate  
with  someone.    If you look at Mail.app, they do a nice job of  
adding an IM indicator for anybody that is online, so I could IM them  
instead of e-mailing them.  So integrating with events, tasks  
(delegatees), and e-mail would be a start.   You could imagine  
extending the samples parcel to allow you to IM the author of an RSS  
feed, flicker stream, or del.icio.us bookmark stream.

Ted