The construction analogy is a compelling one because it *seems* to be so similar to what we do, but the analogy breaks down in a couple of key areas.
First, there is far more standardization in Civil Engineering than in software. As a home buyer, you can ask for a 2-car garage with one door and a 2' bump on the left side (elevation to match house), and you've done a fairly good job of specifying what you want to see in a garage. Adequately specifying software behavior is a lot more complicated because there's so much more variation in how things can operate, even within the realm of "mainstream" designs. The same is true of architecture, by the way, which has no guidance equivalent to the building codes that guide Civil Engineers. The other aspect of this that people tend to gloss over is that when you build a house, you specify structure with an architect, but then, when it's time to put in wiring, fixtures, etc., chances are, you're meeting with someone else so that you can specify those "detail" items. This can be difficult in software, because it's not obvious to anyone but a software engineer which piddly little details are 5-minute changes, and which ones require massive retro-fitting or redesign. Bottom line: I think the analogy works if you keep it to a *very* high level, but it's important to understand where it starts to break down. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46482 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
