3 ms·
Any implementation must accept that you will lose users this way. You can't implement every 'trivial' feature possible in order to avoid shedding users; implem
by fatbird 14y ago
Any implementation must accept that you will lose users this way. You can't implement every 'trivial' feature possible in order to avoid shedding users; implementing one way precludes a different way that also sheds users. Overall, you try to maximize the number of users that you don't shed, but that's it. And in fact, you're frequently better off shedding users willy-nilly, iteratively finding what the core features are that build a userbase, and forgetting about all the rest.
This post is a prescription for paralytic featur-itis.
- gdubs 14y agoCame here to say this. It pains me to think of great products not being released because they don't have the _perfect_ set of features. Until you get real-world feedback from users it's often hard to guess what those must-have features are, anyway.
- wvenable 14y agoI think part of the reason why developers that "dogfood" their own product is so important to some people. If you use your own product, you tend to find these sorts of important minor issues faster. I think, as developers, we've all been guilty about missing obvious and simple areas for improvement because we don't use the product, like users do, every day.
- jzwinck 14y agoOr we have worked places where our bug reports are taken at low priority compared to real customers'. Real customers often don't bother reporting simple bugs, either assuming they will be fixed anyway or judging their value (to one user) as too small. So fit and finish suffer, because developers who do care are systematically ignored.