Tag: SL Viewer

Viewer 1.23: coming to the end of the line

Posted on by Inara Pey

In May of last year, I reported on the initial steps that would see the eventual loss of Viewer 1.23.x as we know it.

That the depreciation had started – and would take a goodly while to complete, admittedly – caused one Third Party Viewer creator to get a little out of his tree, threatening to AR me to Linden Lab for “spreading lies”, and also to submit a “defamation” report against me with WordPress!

Anyway…it now appears that the first major step to ending Viewer 1.23 from effectively working on the Main Grid will be taken some time in Quarter 2 of 2011 (although this has yet to be precisely confirmed by Linden Lab).

The news came to light in a Phoenix Viewer office hour on the 11th January (the transcript from which I missed at the time). To whit:

Linden Labs has announced that they will be blocking search, server-side, for the Viewer 1.x viewer, effectively making all Viewer 1.x useless for search, and effectively forcing users to move over to the Viewer 2x viewer (allowing Linden Labs to move forward with features that are not compatible with the 1.x viewers). That gives the Phoenix team 3 or 4 months to get Firestorm ready for delivery…
[Addendum: To be clear… We were notified of the intention to turn off viewer 1.x search capability during a meeting between LL and approved Third Party Viewers. This information was provided to us as a means to help us prepare for what the future holds for existing 1.x viewers. Linden Lab has not officially announced this yet, and you can be sure that they WILL announce it well ahead of time and give everyone ample notice. We are told that the Lab will stop support for their 1.23 viewer before search in 1.x viewers is turned off….]

This announcement has been reported on at SLU, where it has been met with a mixed response. Elsewhere, the news has also meet with opposition – and one has to say that the concerns and critiques are somewhat justified.

However, is this really a bad thing? While it is true that Search in Viewer 2 is far from perfect, and still needs considerable work (not least shown by the fact that each new release of Viewer 2 seems to operate slightly differently with regards to search, and people have been commenting on this and getting frustrated about it in the official forums for a while) – the fact remains that Linden Lab cannot maintain two code bases indefinitely, and Viewer 2 already embeds a lot of functionality that Viewer 1.23 cannot support without more work than Linden Lab can afford to give, even were they so minded.

Ergo, things have to change, and as such, the end of Viewer 1.23 and its derivatives was and is only a matter of time. And let’s be fair: Viewer 2, while it still has warts, has come a considerable way in the last 12 months. While one could argue that in doing so, it could have benefited if, for part of that time it had remained in a more rigorous closed Beta testing environment in which perhaps more user feedback which was then acted upon, the Viewer would be now be enjoying a far greater degree of popularity among users than is currently the case; the point is now moot. Viewer 2.5 and the 2.5 Beta are a long way removed from the original, and time and effort has been invested by a lot of people both within and without Linden Lab – and they deserve thanks.

Again, the demise of 1.23 later this year shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. The likes of the Phoenix and Imprudence teams have been beavering away with their own Viewer 2 based products, Firestorm and Kokua since around November of last year because of this very fact.

Of course, one could argue that “breaking” search in 1.23 is a lot different to “depreciating” the Viewer – but is it? The end result is the same.

While “breaking” – or more correctly – blocking search for 1.23 is perhaps a little unsubtle in some respects (rightly or wrongly, the perception (note the emphasis!) is that search is “working” in 1.23, and “not working in Viewer 2.x), it shouldn’t be seen as a negative. As some on the SLU thread point out, it clears the way for LL to focus down more thoroughly on Viewer 2 and its good and bad points.

Yes, Search in Viewer 2 still need work – but again, as many have pointed out to those raising a hoo-haw over this move: Search in Viewer 2 does work; just not in all cases. LL is fighting hard against people gaming the system – and in the areas where people complaining about it “not working”, it tends to be the most gaming goes on (such as with land and the like). In other areas, things are a lot better, and merchants and users alike are encountering fewer problems.

However, given that Search on Viewer 2 is still being worked upon, and may people do rely on Search in many ways, one hopes that the “turn off” date for Viewer 1.23’s access to search is not something that will be viewed as “stopping the train” if it is delayed. If we reach the date and it is widely acknowledged by the users who have to make use of it that Search in Viewer 2 still needs important work – LL will delay the switch-off.

Unless, of course, Firestorm and Kokua (and whoever else is going down this route) have rolled out and wooed all those still “anti” Viewer 2 on the grounds of its awkward UI – which is likely to be the case. Providing they do, I have a sneaking suspicion that many won’t even notice any Search issues. They’ll have a Viewer with a UI they like (aka one without a sidebar and with a better approach to chat windows  / chicklets / toasties – whatever cute name you give them) – and so on, and won’t be worried about Search.

Viewer 2.5 web profiles and angst

Posted on by Inara Pey

With the news of Esbee’s forthcoming departure since spreading, Viewer 2.5, recently promised by Frank (FJ Linden) Ambrose is rolled out a “Beta” to trumpeting by Q Linden.

Chief among the list of features in this iteration is the new web-based profile feature. I’ve already reported on this, and I like the fact that, in 1.23.x viewers at least, we get the best of both worlds – a web page Profile and the familiar in-world Profile window. Changes to one are automatically reflected in the other – neat.

However, in Viewer 2.5, it seems things are to be somewhat different: the web page Profile actually replaces the in-world Profile in the sidebar (clicking on Profile now apparently pops-up the built-in browser to display the web Profile). While this overcomes the somewhat ugly and limited Profile display found in the Viewer 2 sidebar, it’s not entirely ideal.

However, this isn’t the biggest issue with the new Profile option. People have already commented on the fact that it includes options to link to Facebook and Twitter – and people commenting on the release are also raising objections about the fact that others can click on the included buttons and add Profiles for SL avatars to their Facebook pages.

Me? I’m failing to see the problem. I’m sure there are those in SL who use Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn who will find such options a delight and welcome addition. For those who don’t, I tend to say, “so what?” Why get all het up about it? I personally don’t use Facebook, so I won’t be linking anything from anyone to anywhere. I don’t even care if Joe Schmoe or Patty Pattacake out in Facebook land link my SL Profile to their Facebook pages because it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. There is nothing within my SL Profile that allows anyone to beat a path to my RL front door; so if Joe or Patty want to claim Inara as their friend – good for them. I’ve never been someone’s imaginary friend before – the experience might be fun.

And that’s assuming there are people out in Facebook land who are going to go clicky-happy when they happen to stumble upon SL avatar profiles – or worse, say nasty things about us! In sort, where this particular problem is concerned, people really should get over themselves. Now, had the new feature forced us all into Facebook land, then I’d understand (and be a part of) the outcry; as it stands, “mountain” and “molehill” are words that spring to mind.

What I do find telling about this release is that it has been pushed out the door by LL despite the fact this much-heralded feature has an irritating bug sitting in it – which is this: it doesn’t exactly work.

Those using Internet Explorer stand to be OK. But people using Chrome or Firefox or Safari, etc., are all reporting issues – specifically “SSL Handshake Failure”. This is due to the fact that the software requires a security certificate in order to function, and the only way to get that certificate until the Viewer is patched (2.5 Beta 2) is to run Internet Explorer and access a profile…

It’s not a major bug – but many people don’t use Internet Explorer. It’s not liked. Period. Linden Lab know this – just look at the kurfuffles surrounding the release of the “new” forum software, which originally only ran “properly” on Internet Explorer (and which today still doesn’t display all posts in a thread in browsers like Chrome…) users of other browsers weren’t exactly shy in giving vent to their frustrations – and rightly so. Given this problem was discovered before 2.5 Beta 1 was released, one has to ask why was the software still pushed out the door? Why the all-fired rush?

Would waiting just a day or two (or even a week) to get the patch sorted really have hurt that much?

I don’t use Viewer 2 – I’m a Phoenix / KLee Viewer user – so something like this doesn’t really affect me per se – and yet it does; simply because it is indicative that  LL, rather than being focused on stability, usability and the like are still focused primarily on dates on the calendar and ticking boxes – something Philip R himself said back at SLCC they’d “gotten wrong” and would be “fixed”.

Well, the fix appears to be lacking.

Viewer 2: Finally starting to show promise

Posted on by Inara Pey

Viewer 2.2 is now out and available – and it is finally starting to look like something many people can live with.

The ability to customise the interface has long been a bugbear in all iterations of the Viewer; and while we still cannot reasonably expect to be able to fiddle with things to the Nth degree, the ability to re-order things like the on-screen buttons is a step forward. We don’t all work the same way, we don’t want to do the same things – we’re not all right-handed or left-handed, much less all left-, or right-brain dominant – so this is going to help many reorganise things into a way that they feel is more logical and easier to use when it comes to their needs. Kudos, at last.

Similarly, the ability to float options away from the sidebar is a good step forward – although it seems from comments that the sidebar still remains the focal-point of the “new” Viewer, and not the in-world view; so my personal pet peeve with the Viewer remains.

It’s also nice to see the promised two-way “dialogue” between TPV developers and LL start to yield fruit, with tools we’ve seen commonplace in several TPVS – texture alignment, Google-powered translation, etc., – finally entering into Viewer 2; may snowstorm result in much more of this – and in both directions.

It’s also nice to see some major idiocy in the Viewer finally disappear, seemingly despite LL’s repeated refusal to initially listen and then simply drag their heels after admitting the problem(s). That parcel icons are now on by default is welcome news so is the ability to turn off scripted lighting and particle generators. Given the amount of resistance shown by LL to do the former, I wonder who took Esbee or someone outside and gave them a firm talking-to?

The reaction to the new Viewer has, overall, been positive in the comments following Esbee’s post, and there have even been some very good suggestions put forward for future improvements. I would hazard a guess that, unless said suggestions find their way into a TPV from a third-party – such as Kirstenlee’sS20, which still outstrips Viewer 2 and offers a (largely) genuine pleasure of a Viewer experience – and thus potentially into Snowstorm, I seriously doubt that they’ll be taken anywhere by Esbee et al.

Are these change enough to get me to jump ship from 1.23.5? Well, to be honest, no, not quite yet. I am curious to see if Marine updates her initial cut of the RLV-enabled version of Viewer 2 she put out on the 10th Oct, and which appears to be based on the Viewer 2.2 code as it stood then; whether changes were made to the base code between the 10th and yesterday’s release is beyond me. If she does, I’ll give things another look; but I’m still very attached to Phoenix – not just because of RLV, but because it still offers capabilities that are extraordinarily handy when keeping an eye on sims and tenants. These far outweigh the bells and whistles offered by Viewer 2, such as media-on-a-prim (which itself seems to have fizzled out like a wet firework rather than illuminating Second Life like a night-time space shuttle launch). As to the really useful features of Viewer 2: Alpha Masks, Tattoo Layers – they are already in the majority of TPVs, and so are hardly an encouragement to make the jump elsewhere.

So where is my incentive to move? Multi-attach / multi-wear? Very nice, but not actually essential, given how long I’ve lived without them – and certainly not worth a trade-off with that bloody sidebar barging out onto my screen without me cluttering-up world-view real estate with minimised windows torn off from it. And then we have the biggie: does search actually work in Viewer 2 now? I’ve honestly lost track of that situation.

Which really means my personal analysis of the latest release is really, “Congratulations, LL on getting a new usable Viewer out there for people. Pity you opted to push the code through the door eight months premature; you’ve still left yourselves a big mountain to climb in the eyes of the more cynical as a result of that mistake. But – well done, all the same, for keeping to your promise vis Snowstorm”.

Out with the globe, in with the storm

Posted on by Inara Pey

Note: Following this post being published, Esbee Linden made a formal blog on the subject on August 17th

In his address at SLCC 2010, Philip made mention of “standardising” the viewer platform. At the time I was curious as to what this might mean and asked a speculative question or two. Later, during SLCC 2010, Q Linden (whom I hope makes a full recovery from his stroke) and others gave more insight into what is going to be happening, and Oz Linden posted an announcement on the opensource dev list (thanks to Argent Stonecutter for the link).

Q’s opening of the SLCC presentation was somewhat enlightening, in that it confirmed many people’s views that Viewer 2.x proceeded along a development path that was simply far too rapid. In fact he candidly admits that it was developed and rolled out to meet a given schedule, rather than when it was “ready” (in November, for example, a meeting was held in which the “to do” list of outstanding work on the Viewer was cut down to a list of things that could be done in the remaining time frame prior to the release of the Viewer.

He also admits that Linden Lab erred when preparing the ground for Viewer 2, in that they didn’t create sufficient use cases to reflect how the Viewer is actually used in-world (that LL needed to “invent” user types in order to build the use cases in the first place also surprised me. After all, what are we out here, if not users?). The upshot of this is an admission that the overall capabilities of Viewer 2 are too narrowly focused.

This may sound like a “well, duh!” statement – but I think it fair to say that such an admission from the development team is somewhat refreshing. It’s not often the Lab or its employees own up to mistakes, and Q’s comments do add up to a strong admission of  having erred, and a hint that the lesson has been learned internally, “For marketing reasons we felt we wanted to keep it secret and we wanted to release it in a kind-of ‘ta-da!’…I think you won’t be seeing any more of that sort of behaviour from us any more! Yes, I hear the applause, thank you!”

Following this, Esbee went over the new methodology for Viewer development – Project Snowstorm, which has the core aim of rapid, effective deployment of new features and functionality. Essentially, and as hinted at by Philip, this will be achieved through meeting three goals:

  • Weekly, visible progress on the Viewer – which not so much is focused on weekly releases per se (although that is something Philip indicated he’d like to see), but more a case of making the development process more visible too all, including users being able to attend development meetings
  • Improving the user experience – hitting Philip’s requirements of Fast, Easy, Fun (a slogan I *still* loathe, but there you go)
  • Revitalising the open-source community

It is this last point that is the most interesting and – if carried through  – marks a radical change in Viewer development; one that would seem to have many potential benefits – and not just for Linden Lab.

The core of this new approach is that Viewer development will be somewhat streamlined, with LL themselves working on specific elements of the Viewer while leaving things open so that third-party developers can engage directly with the LL team and take on development of a given aspect or function within the Viewer, and developers with existing fixes or functions that could benefit the Viewer can deposit their work with the team for potential integration into the Viewer.

This effectively means the end of Snowglobe, the open source “version” of the Viewer code.  To quote Oz Linden, “The main Linden Viewer is now completely open source…the source code is available on a public repository…NOW!” What is more is that this repository is to be the central “integration repository” where all code from Linden Labs will go prior to integration into the Viewer.

Alongside of this is the re-licensing of the code from GPL to LGPL – which, if I am understanding things correctly, means that it will be both easier to incorporate the Viewer code into other Viewers (I assume those that can be used on OSGrids and the like) and – particularly from LL’s point of view – will make the licensing of the code for use in “closed” third-party Viewers significantly easier, potentially attracting other professional organisations towards developing their own Viewer systems without the “stigma” of being associated with open source code. Again, given LL’s stated desire to drive SL onto more mobile platforms – tools such as the iPhone, Droid, the iPad, etc. – this would seem to be a good move, as it will allow third-party organisations with the expertise LL lacks to develop the kind of functionality such tools will require if people are to use to them to access SL and use it for more than just chat and IM.

It’s not just developers who have the chance to be more directly engaged with Viewer development either. AS Esbee said, users will be able to get involved as well: iterative releases will be available bi-weekly or us to use and feed back upon, and even daily releases, or “project releases” covering specific features under development will be made available and user feedback encouraged.

From a non-technical perspective, this does seem to be a logical approach, and in some respects, it is a shame that, when they opened the Viewer code to the community, LL didn’t show foresight and put these measures in place then. Of course, the devil will be in the details – and there is much that will serve as either proof of the pudding or still needs to be addressed  / clarified. In listening to the presentation, a number of points occurred to me, some of which were echoed by others in the Q&A session.

One issue that springs to mind is who will, in the final analysis, determine what is “right” for integration into the Viewer, and will other agendas overrule the core goals – such as making SL Fast, Easy, Fun? “Linden knows best” has been very much a part of the Lab’s culture and has been seen time and again, particularly with the arbitrary closure of JIRAs or the turning of a deaf ear to valid user requests.  With the best will in the world, cultural behaviour is the hardest thing to fix in an organisation.

An extension of this concern comes down to user input actually being heard and acted upon. Q openly admitted at the start of the presentation that LL erred with Viewer 2 in not creating enough user cases on which to model the viewer. Now they seem to be swinging to the opposition end of the pendulum swing: seeking too much user input. There are – as Q and Esbee acknowledge – many diverse uses for SL, and as such diverse sets of users have diverse needs. Some are going to apposite in their aims, others opposite. How are filters going to be applied to stop all these calls simply swamping Snowstorm with the result that the individual internal dev teams beyond them simply cherry-pick or (again) turn a deaf ear?

So where does this leave the current crop of TPVs? Oz was pretty unequivocal on the matter: the Viewer 1 code base will not be developed any further by Linden Lab (Q also touched on the need to depreciate 1.23 in the future, simply due to security issues). Therefore, with the Viewer 2 code base becoming publicly accessible, the view seems to be that TPVs will be encouraged to continue – as well as give input to the new project – but will be expected to migrate to the Viewer 2 code base.  Certainly, there doesn’t seem a move on hand to proactively “shut down”  TPV development, but it is going to be interesting to see how this moves forward and who engages through Snowstorm as is intended, and who simply continue to work on their own Viewers utilising the now-available Viewer 2 code.

Overall, this move strikes me as positive. *IF* LL can carry through on this with the necessary internal cultural changes and if we all, developers and interested residents alike, engage with Snowstorm and LL constructively, positively and openly on our own part, then there is no reason why this project should give birth to something very worthwhile and which benefits us all.

Wishful thinking and Viewer 2

Posted on by Inara Pey

On Monday, NWN confirmed that Tom (T Linden) Hale  had gone from Linden Lab. There was some confusion over this, as (at least for some of us) his in-world Profile (alongside that of Cyn (Linden) Skyberg, also laid-off last week) remained accessible when the likes of Pink Linden’s Profile poofed almost as the news of the lay-offs hit the wires.

Hale’s departure has prompted speculation that Viewer 2.0 is about to go the same way.

All I can say is, guess again, kids.

The basis for the speculation is that Hamlet, in his piece, cites “sources” who suggested a link between Hale’s departure and the “poor performance” of Viewer 2.

Now, whole I’m no great fan of Viewer 2 – I think it was released far to early in its development cycle and with far too many flaws that could have easily been addressed if the developers had been allowed to engage with residents properly and constructively as the Viewer went into the initial “closed Beta”. But, that said, I don’t go along with the idea that the Viewer is going to be scrapped – or even that it is a failure.

The fact of the matter is, it is still far too early to judge the Viewer dispassionately. This is for a number of reasons – some of which I’ve touched on before, but are worth repeating:

  • The viewer was released too early and with to many basic flaws / bugs (the god-awful sidebar behaviour; the myriad of search issues, etc.); as such, it was never going to find favour or popularity among a user base that has time and again proven itself somewhat “anti” change in SL whatever the colour of said change
  • The development / release cycle of Viewer 2 is improving; more to the point the likes of Kirstenlee Cinquetti are demonstrating to LL just what needs to be done to the Viewer 2 user interface to enable it to gain a broader foothold. And Linden Lab is actually listening. The 2.1 release addresses many of the UI shortfalls contained within the initial 2.0 releases and are, in themselves, making Viewer 2 far more user-friendly. What’s more they come on top of changes quickly rolled out in response to the initial “backlash” against other elements of UI functionality, demonstrating the LL are trying to get the balance right. So long as this continues, Viewer 2 will gain wider use
  • The Viewer, together with the New User Experience was intended to be the vanguard of a drive to generate a marked increase in new sign-ups. However, neither can exist in a vacuum – for either to have a major impact on the rate of flow of new users joining SL, they need to be coupled to more aggressive promotion of SL by Linden Lab. This hasn’t really happened. Ergo, both the Viewer and the NUE exist (again, as I’ve said before) in some kind of Costner-esque la-la land of “if you build it, they will come”.

As such, it is hard to see Viewer 2, even the degree of time, effort and money invested in it to date is simply going to vanish as a result of Hale’s departure. Rather the reverse would seem to be the case – as recent blog posts have indicated – the release cycle for Viewer 2 is going to increase, again indicating it is here to stay. I’d also lay odds on it being the foundation for the new “browser-based access” to SL that was announced alongside of the restructuring.

If Hale’s departure was connected in any way with the “poor performance” in Viewer 2’s uptake, I can only assume that it was because he was the one selected to fall on his sword (or tripped in the direction of his sword). Again, we’ve seen very little aggressive marketing from Linden Lab when it comes to getting users through the doors – either utilising Viewer 2 or the New User Experience. Some suggest the total growth in sign-ups since the release of both has been around the 50K, which is not a huge amount given SL’s user retention figures – and much of that influx seems to have been off the back of James Cameron’s Avatar rather than any sustained marketing strategy on the part of Linden Lab.

That there has been no sustained strategy (or any real marketing uptake – when was the last time Catherine (Smith) Linden was in the limelight?) tends to suggest that if Viewer 2’s take-up is already being looked at so critically that a sacrifice was warranted…then one cannot help but roll the word “scapegoat” around in an idle fashion.

Indeed, I’ve often found it interesting that LL have never considered the position of Director of Marketing as being a executive management post.

But to come back to the point: no – whatever the reason for Hale’s departure (including the merging of departments that effectively made his role somewhat redundant), it is not indicative that Viewer 2 is going anywhere other than forward in the immediate future.

What’s so bad about living on the web, eh?

Posted on by Inara Pey

I thought the idea behind the creation of time was to stop everything happening at once? If so, it’s not working for me!

This is probably old news to most of you, as Hamlet has had it over at NWN for a couple of days, but for once I failed to take a peek over there when the restructuring announcement hit the headlines. My thanks to the ever-hunky Ciaran Laval for turning my nose in the right direction…

In his piece, Hamlet not only agrees with the view that LL, in their announcement, in fact mean having a web-based means of accessing SL in addition to the current browser, rather than replacing it; he also cites an example of the same – put together in 2007 by a now-definct (it would seem) UK company called Pelican Crossing.

The browser tool, initially backed by IBM, apparently offered “most of” the functionality found within the Viewer (what was missing is unclear), and therefore would suggest that browser-based access to SL could be both lightweight and workable. Which as has been previously said, shouldn’t be sneezed at.

Pelican Crossing c. 2007 (with thanks to Hamlet Au and New World Notes)

Again, other that having the world-view somewhat reduced, and facing the browser tool and navigation bars, I’m not entirely seeing why people are hating the concept of browser-based access, if it is presented like this: with the necessary functionality to do things.  To me, accessing through a browser (especially if you’ve never downloaded a Viewer) wouldn’t be an issue. And if the “viewer” element could be “popped out” of the browser, even better.

Certainly, there is mileage in offering such an access option, as I’ve already mentioned.

Pelican Crossing may well have gone (or have been sucked into the Big Blue), but if they could do it in 2007….