4 ms·

This reminds me of a friend of mine who I worked with years ago. His background was graphic design or photography or something but he had worked at a very high

by jonah 11y ago

This reminds me of a friend of mine who I worked with years ago. His background was graphic design or photography or something but he had worked at a very high level at a revolutionary software company. He then went to a small company that was acquired by Google. Once there, he was working with these freshly minted Stanford HCI PhDs. They wanted to do studies and gather empirical data before making even the smallest decision. My friend would say "trust me, I've seen this before, this is the correct answer" but he'd get overruled and they'd go through all this effort and end up at the very same conclusion. Some people just "get it". Pay attention to them.

pgodzin 11y ago
How do you know who "gets it" though and isn't just a cult of personality that sells you on his ideas that may be wrong. I'm sure once his ideas are consistently backed up by the data they pay more and more attention to them?
- sneak 11y ago
  I don't know why you're downvoted, as this is a very real problem in many sectors with self-proclaimed "gurus". Anyone who "gets it" will be measurably right often enough that nobody should have to take things on faith for very long.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  This is a good question but I think you are exaggerating what OP meant. What he says is that some people have very good intuition (build on experience and some perspective) which allow them to make good decisions without the need to conduct lengthly studies before they make any decision. This might not be good scientific inquiry but it does make them very effective in moving things forward. Furthermore much of that intuition is built around a very unbiased view of the world which means they might be wrong but will be quick to adjust. Compare that to those Phd students who only learned a method but don't have any other way than to ask others what the right decision is. It's like reading a book and not understanding what it's about. And keep in mind that you don't have to be right to "get it your way" data can back you up repeatedly and you end up failing anyway because you are measuring the wrong things.
msvalkon 11y ago
You could use this same argument to argue against testing software. If one of the people who "gets it" has written this piece of software then there should be no reason to test it because they _know_ it works. Anyone coming in for a job interview at a professional company with this attitude will not be taken seriously. "They" are human and are prone to the exact same errors and mistakes as anyone else. Google is technologically successful because they try to base their decision on analyzed data instead of a gut feeling.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And yet Android UI is mediocre and isn't a qualitative improvement on the previous status quo. I think the point of GP is that listening to the 'someone who "gets it"' can speed up the development process. Indecision has costs, and you can run studies in parallel anyway. Sometimes costs of having to backtrack every now and then are outweighted by the benefits of moving fast. RE arguments against testing in code - testing is cool and all, but at some point you have to ask yourself whether you want to ship a product or a test suite. BTW. the whole anecdote reminds me of a story from Microsoft about problems coming from a group of PhDs: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/TwoStories.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/TwoStories.html
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    "Getting it" can also mean having already tried something before, or having tried enough things that are similar that you can triangulate on what something would actually be like. I'm all for testing and empirical studies, but it can be taken too far. Zynga focuses so much on measuring and testing, that it sucks all the fun and personality out of their game designs.
- xorcist 11y ago
  Empirical data tends to find local maximas. You need someone with a vision how it all fits together and which guiding principles to embrace.

by jonah 11y ago

pgodzin 11y ago

How do you know who "gets it" though and isn't just a cult of personality that sells you on his ideas that may be wrong. I'm sure once his ideas are consistently backed up by the data they pay more and more attention to them?

sneak 11y ago
I don't know why you're downvoted, as this is a very real problem in many sectors with self-proclaimed "gurus". Anyone who "gets it" will be measurably right often enough that nobody should have to take things on faith for very long.
ThomPete 11y ago
This is a good question but I think you are exaggerating what OP meant. What he says is that some people have very good intuition (build on experience and some perspective) which allow them to make good decisions without the need to conduct lengthly studies before they make any decision. This might not be good scientific inquiry but it does make them very effective in moving things forward. Furthermore much of that intuition is built around a very unbiased view of the world which means they might be wrong but will be quick to adjust. Compare that to those Phd students who only learned a method but don't have any other way than to ask others what the right decision is. It's like reading a book and not understanding what it's about. And keep in mind that you don't have to be right to "get it your way" data can back you up repeatedly and you end up failing anyway because you are measuring the wrong things.

msvalkon 11y ago

You could use this same argument to argue against testing software. If one of the people who "gets it" has written this piece of software then there should be no reason to test it because they _know_ it works. Anyone coming in for a job interview at a professional company with this attitude will not be taken seriously. "They" are human and are prone to the exact same errors and mistakes as anyone else. Google is technologically successful because they try to base their decision on analyzed data instead of a gut feeling.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
And yet Android UI is mediocre and isn't a qualitative improvement on the previous status quo. I think the point of GP is that listening to the 'someone who "gets it"' can speed up the development process. Indecision has costs, and you can run studies in parallel anyway. Sometimes costs of having to backtrack every now and then are outweighted by the benefits of moving fast. RE arguments against testing in code - testing is cool and all, but at some point you have to ask yourself whether you want to ship a product or a test suite. BTW. the whole anecdote reminds me of a story from Microsoft about problems coming from a group of PhDs: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/TwoStories.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/TwoStories.html
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  "Getting it" can also mean having already tried something before, or having tried enough things that are similar that you can triangulate on what something would actually be like. I'm all for testing and empirical studies, but it can be taken too far. Zynga focuses so much on measuring and testing, that it sucks all the fun and personality out of their game designs.
xorcist 11y ago
Empirical data tends to find local maximas. You need someone with a vision how it all fits together and which guiding principles to embrace.