Comments on: Not-So-Great Expectations http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/ Running commentary about agile development, user experience design and Ajax. Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:33:43 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Rob Bazinet http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/comment-page-1/#comment-913 Rob Bazinet Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:50:10 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/#comment-913 <p>No, I am not saying to toss out use cases. My disdain is really for the mound of paperwork most large companies require to produce software, if they ever do. They are of the mindset that there must be followed a "Software Development Process" that is really longer than the development process itself.</p> <p>The user MUST be involved in the design, to the point they are part of the team. </p> <p>I don't want to sound like I am against all things organized but I am against the large-company mentality of need reams of paperwork to feel like we are doing the right thing....solving problems.</p> <p>Just look at the work done by companies like 37Signals and Fog Creek. Usability is the key to good software, which my original blog post indicates.</p> No, I am not saying to toss out use cases. My disdain is really for the mound of paperwork most large companies require to produce software, if they ever do. They are of the mindset that there must be followed a “Software Development Process” that is really longer than the development process itself.

The user MUST be involved in the design, to the point they are part of the team.

I don’t want to sound like I am against all things organized but I am against the large-company mentality of need reams of paperwork to feel like we are doing the right thing….solving problems.

Just look at the work done by companies like 37Signals and Fog Creek. Usability is the key to good software, which my original blog post indicates.

]]> By: Dietrich Kappe http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/comment-page-1/#comment-912 Dietrich Kappe Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:55:06 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/#comment-912 <p>Are you suggesting not gathering user requirements? Your apparent disdain for use cases seems to indicate just that. If you don't talk to users and try to understand what they need, aren't you guilty of exactly what you are decrying, i.e. substituting your own opinion for that of the end user?</p> <p>Our conclusions are based on developing successful, usable software. Often, the mess we are called upon to fix is created by developers and designers who spend too little time thinking about exactly what is expected and by whom. If that is "garbage" then I'm happy to be a garbageman.</p> Are you suggesting not gathering user requirements? Your apparent disdain for use cases seems to indicate just that. If you don’t talk to users and try to understand what they need, aren’t you guilty of exactly what you are decrying, i.e. substituting your own opinion for that of the end user?

Our conclusions are based on developing successful, usable software. Often, the mess we are called upon to fix is created by developers and designers who spend too little time thinking about exactly what is expected and by whom. If that is “garbage” then I’m happy to be a garbageman.

]]> By: Rob Bazinet http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/comment-page-1/#comment-911 Rob Bazinet Mon, 03 Apr 2006 02:47:37 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/#comment-911 <p>Yikes! This is a load of garbage. Your view is EXACTLY what is wrong with most software today. You think you need to gather all these use cases and process them to create a document how YOU see the software working. </p> <p>Too much software is created by people who think they know how the process works by reading a bunch of books by people who can only theorize how users need to be treated. </p> <p>Joel is right just by your example. Give me a break.<br /> </p> Yikes! This is a load of garbage. Your view is EXACTLY what is wrong with most software today. You think you need to gather all these use cases and process them to create a document how YOU see the software working.

Too much software is created by people who think they know how the process works by reading a bunch of books by people who can only theorize how users need to be treated.

Joel is right just by your example. Give me a break.

]]> By: Charles Field http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/comment-page-1/#comment-910 Charles Field Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:08:27 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2006/03/notsoreat_expec/#comment-910 <p>We are talking way beyond Mac/Win here. I think it’s kind of a facetious argument. It assumes that there is an expected behavior. Which means we should design as if there isn’t? That eliminates any consideration of an expert user, or any familiarity beyond physical conventions that may apply – a pretty limited set of metaphors. </p> <p>But to return to the Mac/Win jihad, it becomes a case of the old tautology “That which is good exists, that which exists is good” Must we all be crushed under the yoke of MS oppressive tyranny? Their poorly formed and conceived relationships of use? Freedom! Freedom I say! Right, I’ll stop now.</p> <p>Charles</p> We are talking way beyond Mac/Win here. I think it’s kind of a facetious argument. It assumes that there is an expected behavior. Which means we should design as if there isn’t? That eliminates any consideration of an expert user, or any familiarity beyond physical conventions that may apply – a pretty limited set of metaphors.

But to return to the Mac/Win jihad, it becomes a case of the old tautology “That which is good exists, that which exists is good” Must we all be crushed under the yoke of MS oppressive tyranny? Their poorly formed and conceived relationships of use? Freedom! Freedom I say! Right, I’ll stop now.

Charles

]]>