shanik
@shanik
Thinking a lot lately about product & UX approaches to interoperability. Seems like there's a pretty big gap in *product* thought & literature on what is the value flow in interoperable applications. Am I imagining?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shanik
@shanik
That's true for FC as well. E.g: Is the protocol a separate product with its own UX\product flow? The answer for FC is no. I.e, there are many apps that *leverage* the protocol, but no "protocol product". Eg for an app that does that is a marketplace of apps that use FC where user can switch between @dwr.eth makes sense?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Not sure I understand
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shanik
@shanik
afaik, FC protocol facilitates interactions btwn ppl via blockchain, and enables other apps to tailor experiences with those interactions. E.g, Twitter like experience. The protocol itself, though, isn't treated as a product (w UX, flow, etc) beyond dev experience. Only the apps on top of it are. I think this is a gap
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Products aren’t protocols?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shanik
@shanik
I'm looking for UX\product of the FC protocol. The gap is that I don't see it. What would I expect? An "Apps" button that allows me to see the different apps, so I can seamlessly enjoy their value on my FC feed (i.e, on the interactions I create with ppl on the protocol). nm. I'll write something more structured.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
How does that work for the web / HTTP? :)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shanik
@shanik
Only semi good Web2.0 equivalents. Closest I can think of: Browser extensions can enrich the experience by infusing it w external logic\value. The "protocol" is the browser, and extension are dApps. I'm looking for the "browser" equivalent of a protocol like FC. There are whole new design patterns to invent here :)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction