In this section we will highlight the types of Web2.0 tools that the group used and how these tools assisted construction of the report.
Mindmeister is a mind mapping tool that allows multiple users to collaborate in real-time. This was a very effective means of formulating ideas, allocating work, creating structure, and ensuring that all aspects of the report criteria where reviewed. Mindmeister was the most frequently used application during our group report (see appendix). Difficulty in coordinating group work and ensuring all aspects of the report are accounted for is a common scenario that all teams can experience. With the aid of Mind Meister, our group had a very good understanding of what their task was and also had input of ideas from each member to provide a foundation to formulate their structure in the writing. Often in past experience allocation of task is not enough to insure each section flows onto the next. Using this tool, we could reduce redundant or repeated ideas and it would be easier to meet the criteria as we would be more aware of which sections provide reference to the criteria sheet.
The collaboration on documentation can be useful in group projects. Google doc is one of the best tools for collaborating as it uses real-time updates so that multiple people can be editing the same document. Our group found this most useful when validating sections of their report. One scenario that was evidently utilizing multiple web tools but primarily focused on documenting was related to the meeting where we "compared with other Web2.0 application" criteria in section A. Our first approach was to summarize some the simular applications in the overview of Foursquare. During a instant messaging we discussed whether is would be appropriate to use references to other Web2.0 (Amazon in leveraging the long tail). Without delay we could read what had been written on the shared doc, and IM backed our approval and opinion. This communication and access to collaborative documents was fundamental to producing a high quality the report. A point that the team acknowledged after this experience was, "why don't Google Doc have IM on its interface?". The group members were Google Groups IM which could easily be integrated into Google Doc. The only theory we could come up with is that people may not want to be disturbed by others when they are working.
During the three weeks of the lifecycle of the report the group we set up a group on twitter so that we could tweet messages to each member rather then use traditional communication methods. For most of the team this means of communicating and coordinating was a new experience through our investigation into the Web2.0 platform we learnt how to utilize this for specific group communication. We tried to use this tool for coordinating all meetings that would take place over the three weeks. Any meeting changes or meeting "to do's" where tweeted through @perlearning. This meant that all members would be contacted by the one tweet. The best example that emerged while using twitter to demonstrate its successful integration into the group work was a tweet that asked people to bring magazines to the meeting that would be used for making the netcast.
Facebook's role in the group work was primarily for organization. All communication used took on other forms such as IM, email, twitter, therefore using Facebook for a communication platform would be inefficient. Instead, we created a group in which we organised our Web2.0 resources. The group was call Perpetual Learning and had links to MindMeister, Google docs.
Prezi
To make our Netcast we used a rich internet application. Prezi incorporates Adobe Flash into the browser to allow user to collaboratively create a stylish presentation.
To publish our research into Foursquare the team used youTube to upload our Netcast. Furthermore, we purchased a domain from crazydomains.com and hosted our website from JustHost.com using the domain perpetuallearning.info of which we linked our Netcast and research into Web2.0 pattern.