[sldev] RE: Landmarks and Navigation Update 2008-05-29

[Jacek Antonelli]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Qie Niangao <qieniangao at gmail.com> wrote:
> If there is indeed a *hint* of a long-term
> objective to remove LMs from Inventory, then that implies they'd no
> longer be first-class assets, which in turn means they'd no longer be
> available to scripts nor containable in objects.

Ugh. Sorry, but it often upsets me when someone starts an obviously
unfounded rumour ("Landmarks are going to be removed from inventory
omgz!") and then it catches on and turns into hysteria.

I've been closely following the Nav & LM project since it was first
announced. I've been attending the meetings where it's discussed, and
talking directly with the Vectorform people working on the project. So
let me say, with full certainty based on all the knowledge I have of
this project, that there is NO PLAN TO REMOVE LMs FROM INVENTORY,
neither in the short term nor the long term.

There was, at the first meeting, the _question_ "Should LMs be removed
from inventory?" -- gathering input from Residents. It was swiftly
objected to by myself and other Residents, for all the reasons people
have given here on the mailing list. The fact that they sought to
gather feedback about a topic does not constitute a plan. Believe me,
if there was any indication that they _were_ planning to do anything
of the sort, I would raise hell until they changed thier minds ;-P.
But there's not. No plan. Not removing LMs from inventory. Capiche?

In fact, one of their stated objectives on the wiki page is: "Backward
compatibility: Everything we do must be backward compatible and
seamlessly integrated with the existing system (with all of the
scripted objects in IW stores right now, for example). To ensure
backward compatibility, conducting a sort of "inventory assessment" on
Landmark functionality IW will be necessary."

See < http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Landmarks_and_Navigation_Project#Requirements
>

It would be helpful if someone from Vectorform could step in and give
an official word that removing LM from inventory is not on the agenda,
and maybe we can quash this rumor before it gets out of hand.

> Then, before any UI design starts, make sure any changes apply to all
> asset types and operations on all Inventory classes.  It's fine to use
> Landmarks as a test case, but it should test something that actually
> matters.

One step at a time, I say. The current plan, which is still not
finalized, involves a number of useful new features which could later
be extended to inventory items in general:

 1. An easier way to organize and manage them in inventory folders as
you create / receive them.
 2. A space for your own comments / description (in addition to
creator-set description, I believe), which might become searchable in
the future.
 3. A space for tags, which also might become searchable.

Honestly, I'd rather have them testing this out on a relatively minor
feature -- if it breaks, I'd rather have Landmarks not working for a
few days, than having objects, scripts, or clothing not working! Once
the wrinkles are ironed out and it seems to be working well, then it
could be extended to other inventory types. But that's outside the
scope of the current project.

 - Jacek