I read the thing to the end and it seemed like the requirements that the author claims were undelivered weren't mentioned until, "oh and it didn't do this other

I read the thing to the end and it seemed like the requirements that the author claims were undelivered weren't mentioned until, "oh and it didn't do this other thing that we asked for". The confirmation for example, mentioned in the second-last date entry: > turns out, no, wait, the button is there, but it doesn't ask for confirmation (as we had asked) This could have been a much better article if it had laid out the exact requirements in the beginning instead of saying "we just need a list and a button". And while it sounds like the dashboard team really dropped the ball with a lot of things, it also sounds like they may have just not have had good a good specification of what they needed to deliver. If you tell front-end devs to deliver a page that just does this thing (and glosses over the details) they're going to spend time interpreting it how they want. A CSS bulldozer sounds excessive, but why not. I think the company velocity would have been greatly improved if they had handed off a formal spec, broken out the chunks of work, and put them in an issue tracker.