4 ms·
I didn't find it contradictory. The first one is about how to start learning about something more easily and the second one about how to organize it all so that
by kalaksi 2y ago
I didn't find it contradictory. The first one is about how to start learning about something more easily and the second one about how to organize it all so that it's easier to use and understand as a whole. That may also help with getting started too.
I personally agree that examples are a very efficient way to get started and you can learn the details incrementally in a top-down fashion. Some text books during my studies took the bottom-up approach (even explicitly mentioned it) and I never quite liked it.
If the core concepts are simple and not too many, then it probably doesn't matter that much. The point is to get started easily.
- auggierose 2y agoThere is even a headline saying "Getting started is the product". No, it is not. If your product doesn't have nice core concepts, then I don't even want to get started with it. Top-down is fine, as long as there is an actual bottom of core concepts.
- ulbu 2y agoagain, not contradictory. have good core concepts, combine with good entry corridors. good concept with entry blocked by obtusity and esoterics is not a product ready for consumption. i didn’t see the authors suggest that good concepts are unimportant.
- auggierose 2y ago> Humans learn from examples, not from “core concepts” That's a subtitle in the article, and it's wrong.
- kalaksi 2y agoSure, it isn't really the whole product, but I interpreted it as an exaggeration, meaning that easy onboarding would be very essential part of the product and which is the first thing users experience.