3 ms·
What you say is true, but a little bit off base I think. A team designed and developed this software. So this isn't shopping around for specialists, this is b
by ska 6y ago
What you say is true, but a little bit off base I think. A team designed and developed this software. So this isn't shopping around for specialists, this is basic engineering practice to do risk analysis (by whatever name you call it). Two possibilities 1) there was no such process, or 2) the process didn't evaluate UI and workflows well.
In the first case, the teams basic competence is definitely in question. In the second, hopefully this sort of thing causes an improvement in the approach. Point being, this isn't really one of the vast number of possible things that could be looked at, rather it is a fundamental part of the bread-and-butter work of the team that shipped this product.
That being said, a lot of E2E front end stuff is done really poorly because of the way that these systems are sold and serviced. Sometimes they end up in bucket 1 (team unable or not allowed to do a competent job) by design.
- IggleSniggle 6y agoI made a different assumption about what happened here. The tool as developed fit requirements very well. Over time, the tool started to be used for things that were progressively further and further away from its intended design; I imagine that sending to a wash account was (for example) some employee’s clever idea of how to make use of what they already had when their overbearing boss told them to “just make it work.” Then, having been shown to “work”, the process became reified.
- ska 6y agoFair point, but part of risk analysis is looking at what can happen when a tool is not used as designed. Obviously you can't cover all eventualities, but one thing you should do is focus on the worst possible outcomes and work them backwards.