3 ms·

I think what I am seeing in this article is a curious mixture of should and does. For example, the "user > dev" formula is a clear example of "should"; but when

I think what I am seeing in this article is a curious mixture of should and does. For example, the "user > dev" formula is a clear example of "should"; but when he gets to "biz > user", he surreptitiously switches to "does". He explains the biz > user by pointing out stakeholders, and investors, and personal interests, and politics, and all other sorts of crap that, in the real world, puts biz before the user. Very understandable. But should it? And why isn't the same explanatory method applied to the "dev > *" formula? After all, there are clearly very strong personal interests involved in that too.

C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
> But should it? How would it work if it wouldn't? He explains what he means by that. If you spend time and resources on all things the users require and your run out of money and go out of business, everybody loses. Of course you can take any of the "rules" and take them to an extreme where they become wrong. But I think if you don't push them to their breaking point they are good rules of thumb :)
- azangru 3y ago
  > How would it work if it wouldn't? He explains what he means by that. If you spend time and resources on all things the users require and your run out of money and go out of business, everybody loses. I think there is also a bit of a conflation of values vs ability. The formulas in the article represent values. Real life adds constraints based on what's possible. Consider his formula for dev vs user: "user > dev". You could argue that, just as a business is constrained by time and money, so is the developer constrained by time and skills. And yet, the author is happy with turning the greater than sign towards the user in this formula. Why?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - filleduchaos 3y ago
    It's the same thing. If you bias your time and resources towards the things the dev require and/or would like and nobody actually wants to use the resultant software, you equally crash and burn and everyone loses. It's a priority ranking, not a zero-sum game.

C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago

> But should it? How would it work if it wouldn't? He explains what he means by that. If you spend time and resources on all things the users require and your run out of money and go out of business, everybody loses. Of course you can take any of the "rules" and take them to an extreme where they become wrong. But I think if you don't push them to their breaking point they are good rules of thumb :)

azangru 3y ago
> How would it work if it wouldn't? He explains what he means by that. If you spend time and resources on all things the users require and your run out of money and go out of business, everybody loses. I think there is also a bit of a conflation of values vs ability. The formulas in the article represent values. Real life adds constraints based on what's possible. Consider his formula for dev vs user: "user > dev". You could argue that, just as a business is constrained by time and money, so is the developer constrained by time and skills. And yet, the author is happy with turning the greater than sign towards the user in this formula. Why?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- filleduchaos 3y ago
  It's the same thing. If you bias your time and resources towards the things the dev require and/or would like and nobody actually wants to use the resultant software, you equally crash and burn and everyone loses. It's a priority ranking, not a zero-sum game.