Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: zooming, porpoising, and goal level

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Patton
    ... show up in ... painter ... then an ... whole ... the role ... giraffe level, ... Oddly, it s metaphors like this one I see used often that suggests moving
    Message 1 of 23 , May 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Beyer" <beyer@i...>
      wrote:
      > It's an important distinction, and I'd be surprised if it didn't
      show up in
      > some form or other. We talk about developing a design the way a
      painter
      > develops an oil painting-rather than working on the hand in detail,
      then an
      > eye, then the other hand, then an ear, the painter sketches in the
      whole
      > painting in rough-gets all the parts in right relationship to each
      > other-then goes in and fills in the detail. In our process, this is
      the role
      > of visioning-to sketch the overall high-level vision (kite to
      giraffe level,
      > depending on the project) which can then be refined in detail.

      Oddly, it's metaphors like this one I see used often that suggests
      moving one direction - top down - or more abstract to more detailed.
      If I leverage the oil painting metaphor, I think I'm hearing that in
      practice you might do an underpainting, rough things in, then
      actually zoom to paint an eye, or a hand, then change your mind and
      zoom back out to an abstract level, and adjuste the underpainting,
      then zoom back in and change the detailed hand to a foot. Does that
      make sense? So, I guess that's what I'm asserting - books that
      describe what people should do tend to imply design works in one
      direction - but in practice, I'm not so sure.

      thanks for posting Hugh!

      -Jeff
    • Jeff Patton
      ... further. Master painters will work out the intricate details of a painting in a sketchbook. (XPers call this a spike solution.) Once they have figured
      Message 2 of 23 , May 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Rob Keefer <rbkeefer@y...>
        wrote:
        > I'd like to take Hugh's analogy to the painter a step
        further. 'Master' painters will work out the intricate details of a
        painting in a sketchbook. (XPers call this a spike solution.) Once
        they have figured out the detail, it is then applied to the main
        composition.
        >

        Yeah - that's what I mean. I believe that in practice I see a fair
        bit of elaboration and playing with details, then zooming back out to
        abstract.

        Ironically Hugh gave an example in another post of support people
        reporting they spend a large percentage of their time on
        troubleshooting when in actuality his group had observed otherwise.
        The implication is that people aren't good at self reporting. Is it
        possible that when we ask designers what they're doing and they give
        this painting metaphor that they're not self reporting accurately? ;-)

        Glad you posted that Rob.

        -Jeff
      • Jon Kern
        i always say... if you have convinced yourself that you can t get it done locally, what in the heck are you thinking that 12 time zones away is going to be
        Message 3 of 23 , May 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          i always say...
              "if you have convinced yourself that you can't get it done locally, what in the heck are you thinking that 12 time zones away is going to be easier?"
          go figure...
          -- jon
          
          


          aacockburn said the following on 5/5/2005 11:38 AM:
          I read "The world is flat" (I give it a C-, worth a quick scan), and
          thought, along these lines, that what we are saying is, "We don't know
          how to manage a project over here. Perhaps if we go sufficiently far
          away, the people over there know how to do it (answer: they don't). And
          if they don't, then at least the mess is over there compared to over
          here, and the mess is cheaper."

          Of course, I'm interested in learning how to manage a project /over
          here/ (for any 'here')

          AListair


          --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Jon Kern <jonkern@c...> wrote:
          > a possible corollary to "AND YOU DON'T CARE IF YOU GET THE SOFTWARE":
              "Since we're going to fail at building this software anyway,
              we may as well outsource it and fail more cheaply"



        • aacockburn
          ... Yep. I ve interviewed and done the ethnographic stuff on developers, and one has to doublecheck most of what they claim. I even assume that when I describe
          Message 4 of 23 , May 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Patton" <jpatton@a...>
            wrote:
            > The implication is that people aren't good at self reporting. Is it
            > possible that when we ask designers what they're doing and they give
            > this painting metaphor that they're not self reporting accurately? ;-)

            Yep. I've interviewed and done the ethnographic stuff on developers,
            and one has to doublecheck most of what they claim. I even assume that
            when I describe how I do my ethnographic stuff that I'm lying some
            unknown percent of the time. Now don't you feel reassured? ;-))
          • Ron Jeffries
            ... I do. I wasn t sure you knew that. :) Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com I could be wrong. I frequently am.
            Message 5 of 23 , May 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Friday, May 6, 2005, at 7:19:47 PM, aacockburn wrote:

              > --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Patton" <jpatton@a...>
              > wrote:
              >> The implication is that people aren't good at self reporting. Is it
              >> possible that when we ask designers what they're doing and they give
              >> this painting metaphor that they're not self reporting accurately? ;-)

              > Yep. I've interviewed and done the ethnographic stuff on developers,
              > and one has to doublecheck most of what they claim. I even assume that
              > when I describe how I do my ethnographic stuff that I'm lying some
              > unknown percent of the time. Now don't you feel reassured? ;-))

              I do. I wasn't sure you knew that. :)

              Ron Jeffries
              www.XProgramming.com
              I could be wrong. I frequently am.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.