4 ms·

Genuine question: Is there an applicable takeaway from principles this vague? "Tolerant: Handle errors respectfully. Effortless: Don’t make demands or place r

Genuine question: Is there an applicable takeaway from principles this vague? "Tolerant: Handle errors respectfully. Effortless: Don’t make demands or place restrictions on your users. Accommodating: Be approachable, uncluttered and give people room to manoeuvre. Consistent: Follow standards, guidelines, conventions and best practices."

didgeoridoo 9y ago
This is a great point. "Principles" should be about taking a stand about the trade-offs between two desirable things. They can then be used to help guide you when these things come into conflict. Who is trying to make a product that is intolerant, burdensome, aloof, and inconsistent? A framework I usually use is a "this over that", where both "this" and "that" represent things generally considered "good". The Agile Manifesto contains a brilliant example of this: - Individuals and interactions over processes and tools - Working software over comprehensive documentation - Customer collaboration over contract negotiation - Responding to change over following a plan Notice how everything on the right is also a "good" thing, but the manifesto is making you CHOOSE.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  I've seen #1 used many times to solve the problem of "too many regressions" with "the team just needs to communicate more" or "we should set up regular meetings to deal with this issue". It was hard to argue that those teams weren't following both the message and spirit of the agile manifesto, as individuals and interactions were plainly taking precedence over tools and processes. It doesn't, after all, say "individuals and interactions over tools and processes, except when tools and processes make more sense".
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense - or even more likely, with incentives within the organization being so aligned that decisionmakers benefit from making bad calls. It's something that happens surprisingly often.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That's exactly how the teams I worked with applied it. They were in doubt and they decided on individuals and interactions. >That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense It absolutely is a problem with the manifesto and it isn't a common sense decision. Expending a not insignificant level of resources on automated regression testing and CI, or indeed, any other kind of tooling or process is far from a common sense decision - it's a pretty delicate trade off, in fact. Some tooling is worth it, some isn't. If the manifesto said "think carefully about tooling and recognize the delicate trade offs involved" then maybe the problem wouldn't be with the manifesto. It doesn't. It says "individuals and interactions over tools and processes". Ergo meetings > tools.
rglover 9y ago
No. Unfortunately, much of the design industry's exports as of late have become by-and-large impractical fluff. I say this as a designer. If these ideas were expanded upon and articulated with case studies or practical advice then absolutely. If you're curious about principles backed with implementation details, check out https://cadence.cc https://cadence.cc. Looks unassuming but one of the best books on design I've ever read.
- GuiA 9y ago
  Designer here as well, similarly frustrated with the lack of analytical rigor in the discipline. Cadence & Slang did not impress me. I read it a few years ago now so I can’t quote exact examples, but at the time it felt like more fluff to be honest. Well written fluff, but still fluff (ie will design students in 20 years, or even now, benefit from reading it like they would a classic such as “Grid systems for visual design”? My money is on no). Would be curious to hear what aspects of it you particularly enjoyed. Sadly enough, I find that the best books on designing for interactive media are from the 80s/90s. Examples include Raskin’s “The Humane Interface”, Togazzini’s compendiums, etc.
  - azhenley 9y ago
    I do design research. My papers always provide principles with examples and evidence. They are generally very specific though (unlike this article). I agree that it is rare outside of the research community to find evidence (the why) and implementation details (the how) though. An example paper of mine: Toward Principles for the Design of Navigation Affordances in Code Editors: An Empirical Investigation http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N37917 http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N37917
    - angrymouse 9y ago
      Where is the best place/s to find design research?
      - azhenley 9y ago
zython 9y ago
Yes, you just listed 4 of the 8 golden rules by Shneiderman.

didgeoridoo 9y ago

This is a great point. "Principles" should be about taking a stand about the trade-offs between two desirable things. They can then be used to help guide you when these things come into conflict. Who is trying to make a product that is intolerant, burdensome, aloof, and inconsistent? A framework I usually use is a "this over that", where both "this" and "that" represent things generally considered "good". The Agile Manifesto contains a brilliant example of this: - Individuals and interactions over processes and tools - Working software over comprehensive documentation - Customer collaboration over contract negotiation - Responding to change over following a plan Notice how everything on the right is also a "good" thing, but the manifesto is making you CHOOSE.

crdoconnor 9y ago
I've seen #1 used many times to solve the problem of "too many regressions" with "the team just needs to communicate more" or "we should set up regular meetings to deal with this issue". It was hard to argue that those teams weren't following both the message and spirit of the agile manifesto, as individuals and interactions were plainly taking precedence over tools and processes. It doesn't, after all, say "individuals and interactions over tools and processes, except when tools and processes make more sense".
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense - or even more likely, with incentives within the organization being so aligned that decisionmakers benefit from making bad calls. It's something that happens surprisingly often.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That's exactly how the teams I worked with applied it. They were in doubt and they decided on individuals and interactions. >That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense It absolutely is a problem with the manifesto and it isn't a common sense decision. Expending a not insignificant level of resources on automated regression testing and CI, or indeed, any other kind of tooling or process is far from a common sense decision - it's a pretty delicate trade off, in fact. Some tooling is worth it, some isn't. If the manifesto said "think carefully about tooling and recognize the delicate trade offs involved" then maybe the problem wouldn't be with the manifesto. It doesn't. It says "individuals and interactions over tools and processes". Ergo meetings > tools.

rglover 9y ago

No. Unfortunately, much of the design industry's exports as of late have become by-and-large impractical fluff. I say this as a designer. If these ideas were expanded upon and articulated with case studies or practical advice then absolutely. If you're curious about principles backed with implementation details, check out https://cadence.cc https://cadence.cc. Looks unassuming but one of the best books on design I've ever read.

GuiA 9y ago
Designer here as well, similarly frustrated with the lack of analytical rigor in the discipline. Cadence & Slang did not impress me. I read it a few years ago now so I can’t quote exact examples, but at the time it felt like more fluff to be honest. Well written fluff, but still fluff (ie will design students in 20 years, or even now, benefit from reading it like they would a classic such as “Grid systems for visual design”? My money is on no). Would be curious to hear what aspects of it you particularly enjoyed. Sadly enough, I find that the best books on designing for interactive media are from the 80s/90s. Examples include Raskin’s “The Humane Interface”, Togazzini’s compendiums, etc.
- azhenley 9y ago
  I do design research. My papers always provide principles with examples and evidence. They are generally very specific though (unlike this article). I agree that it is rare outside of the research community to find evidence (the why) and implementation details (the how) though. An example paper of mine: Toward Principles for the Design of Navigation Affordances in Code Editors: An Empirical Investigation http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N37917 http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N37917
  - angrymouse 9y ago
    Where is the best place/s to find design research?
    - azhenley 9y ago

zython 9y ago

Yes, you just listed 4 of the 8 golden rules by Shneiderman.