4 ms·
When I first read "conceptual debt" I thought it would mean poor architectural decisions as it relates to building software. Of course that's not what he meant.
by kovacs 11y ago
When I first read "conceptual debt" I thought it would mean poor architectural decisions as it relates to building software. Of course that's not what he meant. What he really means is what I would call "UX debt" if I were crafting a name for it.
I don't think it's helpful to create a new term to describe something that could be easily encapsulated by using a term that most everyone already knows, is industry standard, and is implicitly obvious to anyone versed in the practice of building software products. Right now "bad UX" would be the same as "UX debt". That terms makes sense to me because it codifies a real concept that I've absolutely held in my mind.
With all due respect to the author, and I applaud his effort to try to improve communication tools, I believe this name has "conceptual debt" :)
- stickfigure 11y ago"UX debt" feels rather broad - a whole range of tactical issues like color scheme consistency, button naming, inline vs modal editing, etc could be lumped in. I rather like the term "conceptual debt" - conceptual issues at the UX also usually have deep effects on the data model and deeper parts of software architecture. "There's something wrong with the UX of your app", "there's something wrong with the technology of your app", and "there's something wrong with the concept of your app" all register distinct meanings for me, even if there is significant overlap.