3 ms·

It's particularly encouraging to read the many hours of work and back-stepping he's done, to get the quality really, really high. Startups are often associated

by jansho 9y ago

It's particularly encouraging to read the many hours of work and back-stepping he's done, to get the quality really, really high. Startups are often associated with speed, but less so on flexibility, even if lean philosophy purports it. Ship fast. Get the bare-bones MVP done. Aim for viral growth. This is probably why we have millions of apps, but only a few dozens last and actually taken up by the mass. Different types of products mean different processes after all, give or take amount of resources. In this app's case, it's about re-imagining an existing function - timetables. The designer knows that user experience is everything, and because of this he's willing to scrap everything if need to. And even when this happens, it isn't exactly waste as you understand the problem deeper and come to the design of an even better solution. Sure you can argue that an MVP can bring about those design iterations. Keeps your focus on the users too. But arguably the market for this type of product is very active - though not necessarily competitive. So rather than get buried with the hundred others, it needs to shine right from the beginning.

snarf21 9y ago
You're exactly right. I think the thing you said that people can't get their head around too is that you sometimes have to decide you are wrong and start something over. Learning from failure is the hardest thing to get right. The missing piece is usually having enough data to know if you have failed. With that, going deeper and better feels like an improvement not a reset.
- jansho 9y ago
  Admitting that you're wrong may sound like a bruise to your ego, but only if you feel personally tied to the project. Pixar has a good approach; they vehemently emphasise that the project is always separate and thus criticism towards it are never personal. If you try and do it for your own project, you can get a more objective view and explore much more design possibilities. The downside to this is a longer process, and actually you become more prone to "analysis-paralysis". But still I would argue that it's part of developing yourself to become more objective, at least that's the experience with my project anyway. It's funny that we're taking about this because two weeks ago I had to tear down an entire product architecture, built over 3 years, to start all over again. I had made one flawed assumption at the beginning, and it got buried so deep that I didn't realise for a long time. It manifested itself into a set of problems that I kept hitting into, until I had to concede that there's something rotten at its core. It sounds like a waste, but no: the new product was actually designed at a much shorter time, and far better than its predecessor (well you'll just have to take my word for now ;)) And yes I do feel a bit silly for being in denial before.

by jansho 9y ago

snarf21 9y ago

You're exactly right. I think the thing you said that people can't get their head around too is that you sometimes have to decide you are wrong and start something over. Learning from failure is the hardest thing to get right. The missing piece is usually having enough data to know if you have failed. With that, going deeper and better feels like an improvement not a reset.

jansho 9y ago
Admitting that you're wrong may sound like a bruise to your ego, but only if you feel personally tied to the project. Pixar has a good approach; they vehemently emphasise that the project is always separate and thus criticism towards it are never personal. If you try and do it for your own project, you can get a more objective view and explore much more design possibilities. The downside to this is a longer process, and actually you become more prone to "analysis-paralysis". But still I would argue that it's part of developing yourself to become more objective, at least that's the experience with my project anyway. It's funny that we're taking about this because two weeks ago I had to tear down an entire product architecture, built over 3 years, to start all over again. I had made one flawed assumption at the beginning, and it got buried so deep that I didn't realise for a long time. It manifested itself into a set of problems that I kept hitting into, until I had to concede that there's something rotten at its core. It sounds like a waste, but no: the new product was actually designed at a much shorter time, and far better than its predecessor (well you'll just have to take my word for now ;)) And yes I do feel a bit silly for being in denial before.