Re: [Fed-Talk] "User" v. "Consumer" v. "Enterprise"
Re: [Fed-Talk] "User" v. "Consumer" v. "Enterprise"
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] "User" v. "Consumer" v. "Enterprise"
- From: "Timothy J. Miller" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:08:33 -0600
Joel Esler wrote:
I don't agree on this point. Just because they are 3 seperate apps,
doesn't meant they aren't integrated. They work and talk with each
other in real time, that's integration. If you mean "all in one app".
Then there are apps like Entourage that do that. But I prefer to have
3 apps. Enterprise use too.
In the end no-one knows which of these models is more effective because
no-one's bothered to really study it. Usually these discussions fall
back on "users want X" but those wants only reflect what a given user
population is familiar with.
E.g., in discussing an enterprise mail system it will usually be trotted
out that it *must* support calendaring in MS Outlook because "that's
what users want"--but since that's all users have ever had what basis is
there for comparison?
(IMHO, the best architecture is standard multi-tier; i.e., decompose by
service and do any integration (if at all) at the presentation layer.
E.g., an enterprise messaging architecture is composed of mail,
calendar, directory, and presence; provide these as services. Users can
then choose a presentation layer that suits their needs at a specific
time--i.e., all-in-one thick client at the workstation, separate thinner
clients on a mobile device, thin-client web interface at a kiosk, &etc.
But that's getting off topic.)
-- Tim
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden