4 ms·

Not to jump off topic, but my takeaway from Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things" was that design is of process of compromises. Could be time, could be budge

Not to jump off topic, but my takeaway from Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things" was that design is of process of compromises. Could be time, could be budget, could be other factors within the company, etc. But there are almost always unseen forces the public isn't aware of that impacts the design they do see. I would presume APIs are no different. There is no objective and absolute perfect API. Instead there are always tradeoffs, always compromises.

klysm 3y ago
I've been contemplating something along these lines for a bit: Step one is to understand the tradeoff space. Step two (which is sometimes much more difficult) is picking where in the tradeoff space makes sense for the business, but now and into the future.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  > but now and into the future. That's tough. The context is always changing. The future looks different every week or two. Worth considering but it's also easy to go down the rabbit hole of over anticipating, over planning, etc. Be wise. Be thorough. But be aware you'll be wrong often (when it comes to predicting the future).
  - hinkley 3y ago
    The best predictors don’t scout all roads, they instead avoid decisions that cut them off. We still have a legacy of bad design we were chasing in the 00’s and well into the 10’s of trying to future proof things when what we should have been doing was hedging by putting off decisions we cannot change as long as we possibly can: the Last Responsible Moment is too often conflated with YAGNI - things like building infrastructure “you don’t need yet” (need is open to interpretation and a clogged roadmap full of long runways often means that targets of opportunity should be pursued when the trail is hot, not when the “time is right”. There is never time, only opportunity). When instead I think it is more about jumping off ledges with no trail back. I cannot reverse this decision, so I should avoid it as long as I reasonably can. Stall until there is more information, until your tools are better, until the requirements are clear, until workarounds and interim solutions do not suffice and you must commit. Stall, study, scaffold.
    - spyspy 3y ago
      > There is never time, only opportunity Brilliant. I agree with everything you said. Present me has no idea what future me needs. Let future me decide. Keep things simple and flexible as long as possible.
xwowsersx 3y ago
Absolutely. Recently at $JOB, during discussions about designing a new system, I recalled the quote by Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."
rswail 3y ago
Eames said "Design depends largely on constraints". https://www.hermanmiller.com/stories/why-magazine/design-q-and-a-charles-and-ray-eames/ https://www.hermanmiller.com/stories/why-magazine/design-q-a... Regarding compromise, he said: > Have you been forced to accept compromises? > > I don’t remember ever being forced to accept compromises, but I have willingly accepted constraints.
wodenokoto 3y ago
I think the book sets out to explain 2 things, and does that really well: 1. Why do everyday things end up being designed the way they are 2. What makes one thing designed well and another not? Normann definitely goes out of his way to say that some things are poorly designed and other are not. One of my favourite bits is on stove tops. He argues why basically every stovetops knob-layout is wrong and then goes on to explain why we end up with a "wrong" layout: It is because stovetops are designed to be sold in the showroom, more than they are designed to be used in the kitchen. It looks nice to have the knobs in a row (the book is from before touch controls) and that's why they are in a row and not in a square configuration. I don't think the takeaway here is "it's a compromise, and it is what it is", I think the point Norman wants to make is more along the lines of "This is why we can't have nice things".
jvans 3y ago
That's sort of true but also used as an excuse for crappy design/execution.

klysm 3y ago

I've been contemplating something along these lines for a bit: Step one is to understand the tradeoff space. Step two (which is sometimes much more difficult) is picking where in the tradeoff space makes sense for the business, but now and into the future.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
> but now and into the future. That's tough. The context is always changing. The future looks different every week or two. Worth considering but it's also easy to go down the rabbit hole of over anticipating, over planning, etc. Be wise. Be thorough. But be aware you'll be wrong often (when it comes to predicting the future).
- hinkley 3y ago
  The best predictors don’t scout all roads, they instead avoid decisions that cut them off. We still have a legacy of bad design we were chasing in the 00’s and well into the 10’s of trying to future proof things when what we should have been doing was hedging by putting off decisions we cannot change as long as we possibly can: the Last Responsible Moment is too often conflated with YAGNI - things like building infrastructure “you don’t need yet” (need is open to interpretation and a clogged roadmap full of long runways often means that targets of opportunity should be pursued when the trail is hot, not when the “time is right”. There is never time, only opportunity). When instead I think it is more about jumping off ledges with no trail back. I cannot reverse this decision, so I should avoid it as long as I reasonably can. Stall until there is more information, until your tools are better, until the requirements are clear, until workarounds and interim solutions do not suffice and you must commit. Stall, study, scaffold.
  - spyspy 3y ago
    > There is never time, only opportunity Brilliant. I agree with everything you said. Present me has no idea what future me needs. Let future me decide. Keep things simple and flexible as long as possible.

xwowsersx 3y ago

Absolutely. Recently at $JOB, during discussions about designing a new system, I recalled the quote by Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."

rswail 3y ago

Eames said "Design depends largely on constraints". https://www.hermanmiller.com/stories/why-magazine/design-q-and-a-charles-and-ray-eames/ https://www.hermanmiller.com/stories/why-magazine/design-q-a... Regarding compromise, he said: > Have you been forced to accept compromises? > > I don’t remember ever being forced to accept compromises, but I have willingly accepted constraints.

wodenokoto 3y ago

I think the book sets out to explain 2 things, and does that really well: 1. Why do everyday things end up being designed the way they are 2. What makes one thing designed well and another not? Normann definitely goes out of his way to say that some things are poorly designed and other are not. One of my favourite bits is on stove tops. He argues why basically every stovetops knob-layout is wrong and then goes on to explain why we end up with a "wrong" layout: It is because stovetops are designed to be sold in the showroom, more than they are designed to be used in the kitchen. It looks nice to have the knobs in a row (the book is from before touch controls) and that's why they are in a row and not in a square configuration. I don't think the takeaway here is "it's a compromise, and it is what it is", I think the point Norman wants to make is more along the lines of "This is why we can't have nice things".

jvans 3y ago

That's sort of true but also used as an excuse for crappy design/execution.