@julianstirling and I are currently drafting a report regarding the third phase of the OKH project - Interactivity. Following from a few conversations, we are investigating a shared definition of interactivity (which you might call 2-way portability) as well the technical barriers to development, in order to make recommendations.
We would love to get your comments on our first initital draf of the repot, available here:
Some questions to consider:
- What do you see ‘interactivity’ as in open source hardware?
- What would be the pros and cons?
- What would be the technical barriers to development of a standard for interactivity?
- Have we missed any significant dimensions to those questions in our draft report?
Let us know below, or feel free to message / email me direct if you have quesitons.
@briannaljohns - definitely something to dovetail with the OSH workshops / growing community of practice
I think vis-a-vis communities of practice and interactivity, something we suggest in the report here is to map the data types, data strucutres, work-flows, programs and platforms actually used by
practitioners, as well as their stakeholder groups, to better identify which aspects of their projects could be targeted for a high-fidelity portability, rather than wholesale interactivity. This kind of development would indeed need to be dovetailed with communities
Bumping this post with a request for the community:
Please share your thoughts/feedback on the Interactivity Scoping doc either by:
We’re keen, in particular, we’d like to hear from those who do not consider themselves to be technical experts - how does this document read? Does it make sense? Where do questions still remain?
Please share your feedback by EOD (end of day) Fri Sep 29, as the co-authors are looking to wrap their current draft soon.