On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sounds both good in principle, and bad like waterfall. Waterfall is dead. >> > > Strike the waterfall part. Still, we end up with three artifacts: a > design goals document, a prototype, and a spec. The design goals should be > the first to stabilize, the spec should be the last. > There is no first or last. There is iteration, feedback, testing, iteration. Design should be swift, prototypes many, spec as a summary. > > >> >> Would such goals have helped promises? I bet we would have fought over >> the goals, at best. At worst, we'd agree to vague goals and end up where we >> ended up. >> >> > I think it would have helped. A formal set of goals is a measuring stick > for the final design. If one of those goals is "conform to AP2", then we > can look at the final design and determine whether it, in fact, does > conform to AP2. > > Furthermore, much of the "meat" of a design follows as a straight-line > consequence of a well-stated set of goals. (See that doc I linked to for > an example.) > All straight lines are illusions. Well-stated goals are goals rewritten to explain the results of iteration. But "re-written", not "ignored". Create goals, build to them, try it, re-create goals. No pure logic process can defeat reality: the promises discussion is built into the complexity of the problem and the currently available solutions. Hope for a technical breakthrough, plan for a compromise or a tough decision. jjb
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
