Talk:Online office suite/Archive 1

Below follows content from the Web office talk page, which was merged with Online Office

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work together and share information with team members — anywhere, anytime, with anyone.

not understood the significance of this talk entry. Please elaborateSanjiv swarup (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neither do I, but you added it here ! What did you mean? GameKeeper (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have forgotten. :-( . Please dele this para Sanjiv swarup (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete it. if too many entries get added to this talk page it can be archived. This explains how it can be done WP:Archive, however it is not required yet for this talk page. In general people just add to talk pages until they become too big, then they are archived. Removing things can confuse the flow of the conversation. See WP:TALK for more on how talk pages work GameKeeper (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest transfer to archive section Sanjiv swarup (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

examples section

eDesk Online is a complete online office suites. In comparison with other online office suites like Zimbra desktop, easy office etc. eDesk Online is the better office suites because, it is compatible with OpenDocuments and Microsoft Office file formats. eDeskOnline Nbpandya 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is no place for discussing the comparision of respective suites. Just a mention of this site on the examples section should suffice. Please comment. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as no objections recd., I am mentioning this site on the examples section . Sanjiv swarup (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual criteria for whether an item is included in lists, comparison articles etc. is whether it fulfils WP:N and thus has its own article. If it's not notable enough to have its own article (so has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), then it's not notable enough to be included in comparisons and lists. Note that the rest of the links, with the exception of EDesk Online, are bluelinks, meaning that they have their own article. So, unless EDesk gets its own article, and that article isn't deleted for lacking notability, it will probably get removed from the list eventually. Hope that helps -- simxp (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an independent article for this earlier. Maybe that can be revived. Have put in a red link. Suggestion: let us simply have a link to the DMOZ link Sanjiv swarup (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original edeskonline article was deleted for not being notable. Here is the debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edeskonline GameKeeper (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. Suggestion: let us simply have a link to the DMOZ link Sanjiv swarup (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step, I wish to delete this para, and simply direct viewers to the pre existing article "comparision of online offices" Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i agree that the examples section is not needed here, since we already have list and comparison articles. But, regarding the comparison article, it is already mentioned in the see also section. So, we should either remove the comparison link from the see also section and move it the examples section, OR, delete the examples section altogether and have the comparison link only in see also section. Dhshah (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC) DHShah : I have taken your second suggestion and deleted the section[reply]

a good reference article

Fax machines, couriers, and e-mail are old news. Today's reviewing and meeting apps use the Web to share desktops, photos, and live video.

ConceptShare is a neat reviewing tool. We have reviewed ConceptShare before. VH1 used the professional version of this tool to redesign its Web site. ConceptShare's demo was really slick, showing the crowd a step-by-step brainstorming session on a design for a business card. ConceptShare focuses on asynchronous communication, meaning users note suggestions and changes without the need to have people in the room. It's almost like passing around a story among copy editors. It's less of a net meeting, and more of a sharable whiteboard for documents and media.

SlideAware is a PowerPoint add-in that lets you publish and share PowerPoint presentations via an Office add-in. Once you've clicked the Publish button in PowerPoint, you have the option to control how people can use your presentation, either by limiting how long it will be hosted, or how many times the presentation can be viewed. Think of it like DRM for your presentation. There's also a drag-and-drop interface to customize the order of your slides, depending on who is viewing it. To follow suit with the group theme of these presentations, SlideAware also has online collaboration to create and manage shared presentations with others. We'll have a hands-on look at this soon.

Spresent is a Flash-based presentation creator that comes in both browser and desktop flavors. We got our hands on Spresent in December, and today it's releasing its third version. It uses vector graphics for text and clip art, meaning you can zoom and scale presentations as needed without a reduction in quality. It's marketed as "High Definition" and as a presentation tool for mobile devices.

Vyew is a synchronous and asynchronous collaboration and conferencing product. Presenter Christopher Peri took a bold move and invited Under the Radar attendees to join his live Vyew presentation to show off the product. It was also a brilliant move as nearly everyone who joined had a hands-on demo right in front of them. Peri also showed that Vyew presentations can be embedded in various places like Netvibes and MySpace, something that in all honesty seems like more of a gimmick and less of a needed feature for a presentation tool. Check out our previous coverage of Vyew..

http://www.webware.com/8300-1_109-2-0.html?keyword=Office+2.0 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Zoho

Zoho offers a suite of online web applications geared towards increasing your productivity and offering easy collaboration. Zoho's online office tools ...

www.zoho.com Nbpandya 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you leading up to ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this section should be deleted as it is an advertisement.

Dhoomady (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposing to archive this sub section Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction : suggest removal of these paras

Applications are often developed on the Web 2.0 paradigms with leverage on the existing developer community. Players come from both the commercial software market and from the open source, free software communities.

The term Office 2.0, which is sometimes used to refer to online office suites, originated with Ismael Ghalimi in an experimental effort to test whether he could perform all of his computer based work in online applications. It is a marketing neologism representing the concepts of office productivity applications as published applications rather than stand-alone programs, leveraging the Web 2.0 concept to conjure imagery of collaborative, community based and centralised effort rather than the more traditional application running on a platform locally. It is also the focus of the annual Office 2.0 Conference.

Reason : These paras confuse the reader. They may be referred to in the reference section.

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Docs & Spreadsheets ( examples section }

Free web-based word processor and spreadsheet, which allow you share and collaborate online. docs.google.com Nbpandya 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest add this in the examples section . Should I do so ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wikilink to Google Apps is already there. -- simxp (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

may i archive this sub section ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H&R Block Online Tax Services

H&R Block Online Tax Services | Online Tax Help from a Tax ...Get help from a tax professional online. Enter the basic information for your income ... Online Office. Work with an H&R Block tax professional from home. ...

www.hrblock.com/taxes/products/product.jsp?productId=62

Preezo

Preezo Enters Online Office RaceGoogle and Zoho aren't the only companies making waves in the online office race. New startups are launching regularly that emulate one or ...

www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/11/preezo-enters-online-office-race/ Nbpandya 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkFree®

ThinkFree® is the leader in next-generation office productivity solutions for platform independent, anytime, anywhere-computing. ThinkFree usability extends beyond PCs and is perfect for Internet-connected devices, including thin client and mobile computing platforms.

http://product.thinkfree.com/company/ Nbpandya 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkfree offers you an online office, as does AjaxWrite, gOffice, and flyWord .

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/26/technology-for-the-rest-of-us-online-word-processing-and-collab/ kalivd

goffice.com

This is a free Web Office Suite. Type right in your browser, view finished PDF document, save and print.

[www.goffice.com] Nbpandya 16:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems interesting. But does it cover all the office tools that MS office has Dhoomady (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relaible in compare with ms office Rupesh86 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heard it charges 99 cents per month(goffice.com) for the services.is it true?Jain puneet (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern that this is a neologism

The Web Office concept is relatively new. I intend to extend the definition as accurately as possible.

You know, I think this is a neologism. Wikipedia doesn't permit original research. Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. It seems you opposed the speedy deletion. You can contact me if you also think this page should be deleted, otherwise I will nominate it for deletion through the usual process. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - but WP:NEO ain't WP:CSD. --Haemo 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree in that the term is a neologism. But the article is Wikipedia:No original research, and it adheres to Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are many sources we could cite to verify the definition.

Some that I found since your kind observations are:

Richard MacManus, editor at zdnet and Read/WriteWeb
Rod Boothby, who published a white paper on the subject at innovation Creators

Alexander Hayes, Om Malik, and other area experts have discussed the term too.

Conradov 13:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over disagreement between references as to the definition of "web office"

Your second source is cited from a blog (please go to http://www.innovationcreators.com/ and convince yourself that the main purpose of the site is to be a blog; sticking fancy graphics at the top of a "white paper" doesn't make it peer-reviewed literature). Blogs are not reliable sources (see WP:R), they are mostly classed as original research (WP:NOR). The other source uses the terms "web office tools" and "web office products", not "web office". For the claims about Hayes and Malik, you have provided no sources. And "other area experts" is an example of weasel words, see WP:WEASEL. I would like to see better evidence that:

the term "web office" is actually used in isolation, rather than "web office suite" or "web office tools"
the term is agreed by several sources to conform to your definition. Please note that dictionary definitions should appear at wiktionary, not here.

Since one previous commentator did not seem to understand, let me be clear here that when I say "nominate for deletion", I am referring to WP:AFD. I don't feel that I've seen the evidence necessary for me to abstain from such nomination.

Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this article Om Malik refers to the Web Office and distinguish it from Microsoft Office, an Office Suite. Alexander Hayes titles this original research piece 'Web Office'. In this article at InfoWorld Jon Udell uses the term 'Web Office' to refer to the same concept.

With the spirit to comply with the cited WP policies, I went to study the Office Suite article in order to compare it and imitate it. I believe 'Office Suite' to be of the same kind of 'Web Office'. That term is not defined in Wiktionary and it does not cite any sources, neither in the article nor the discussion page. If it is in your reach, could you please kindly point me to the part of the process that made 'Office Suite" comply with the referred policies? I am not an expert in the process, so that help would be of great value.

You are very kind in your help and, being new in this area, I admire you professional approach to your role. My most sincere thanks. Conradov 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes' site seems to refer to the "web office toolkit", this being a collection of tools one might use through the web at one's office. I don't see him referring to web office as being a web version of the desktop office suite. The white paper you inserted into this article as a reference similarly states, "It’s interesting to note that Web Office is not an AJAX version of Microsoft Office, but instead, is a whole new way of working. So AJAX powered versions of MS Word or Excel are not really needed." However, Om Malik and the blog cited by him seem to refer to web office in that sense. So there is clearly some disagreement over the definition of the term - a loose collection of AJAX productivity tools, or a close equivalent of the traditional office suite? I'm afraid this may be a case of letting the dust settle. From experience, I can tell you that you will need at least six references to save an article of this kind from extinction, including at least two from reliable sources such as newspapers, rather than blogs and web-only tech publications, which people find much easier to discredit.

As for your question why this doesn't apply in equal measure to other articles, such as office suite, let me use an extreme example: the article Earth. Even without references, that article would survive a listing on Articles for Deletion easily, because it's fairly common sense that the Earth exists. In the same way, some subjects have become so commonplace that no editors would embarrass themselves with nominating them for deletion. But where new products and ideas are concerned, doubt often enters the picture. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Richard MacManus reference

Richard MacManus kindly sent me a set of references. Here, he first calls the concept a "Web-based Office ", then "Web Office Suite" here, and finally starts using the term 'Web Office' here. Even though the term later settled to be something a bit different, he cites many current Web offices and points to some of the definition concepts. Maybe a good external reference.

Here is an early 'Web Office' reference at a Slashdot article.

Conradov 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not understood the significance on this talk entry.can u just give more set ofreferences. Anoopnair2050 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good candidate for archiving Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Management Applications

Systems with this ample set of functions could be called EIS systems, instead of a Web Office

Do not understand the significance of this line in this section ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if consensus , one may dele this line Sanjiv swarup (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted for being a POV. Also seems to be a misplaced comment Sanjiv swarup (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

components section: May we add this line ?

May we change this line ?

Web Publishing Applications

should read as

Publishing Applications

There is no point in mentioning web: the title of the article itself indicates online

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The above comment is very relevant.
Dhoomady (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does editgrid qualify as an example of online office app?

As per the wiki page for editgrid, it is only an online spreadsheet application provider. It does not include any other office tools. I would classify an application as an online office suite only if it provides multiple (more than one) office applications. So as per me, it can be given as an example on online spreadsheet article but we cannot give editgrid as an example of online office. I invite comments from other editors on this. Dhshah (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i checked with editgrid, and as said it does not qualify to be an online office suite Kalivd (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete dependence on Internet connection-?

There are office suites like edeskonline and others which offers features like managing your office on mobile.Even if the internet servers trims down,one can access to the information through the Mobile Handsets.one doesnt need to carry a desktop/laptop everywhere. Its convenient for the people who have more of field work.All one need to do is get GPRS activated on their handsets.and ofcourse handsets should be GPRS enabled.Any comments.Jain puneet (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty Good and convinent. But are all the handsets compatible to this.
Dhoomady (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes eDeskOnline is handset compatible it can run on a basic GPRS activated phone. Edeskonline (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this sub -section ? Do you wish to make any changes in the article ?

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online Office with social networking

These days, no online application is complete without some sort of sharing and/or social networking components.One can push a document to a blog or send it via e-mail. one can share documents with other users, assigning them either read-only or co-author privileges. Even these applications(like edeskonline,Zoho etc)can work as an intra net for a company.Allowing your colleagues to share information and files,and one can define them too.Any comments.Jain puneet (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit to SMEs

The internet is about innovation, speed and utility.A key advantage of web-based applications is their ability to connect workers in different locations and ensure they are able to communicate and collaborate effectively. This has really changed the playing field for SMEs that can now function as global operations much more efficiently than they have ever been able to do before, without incurring the immense costs associated with things like wide-area networks and virtual private networks - all of which require greater expense and introduce complexity into business operations.the internet dream of total access to your business and round-the-clock availability has become a reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jain puneet (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]