RE: [agile-usability] Re:are you making efficient designs?
- Robert:I would actually argue along the lines of your dev team. If you work out the requirements upfront and then the architecture upfront, then you are very close to follow a traditional waterfall process. Some of the assumptions of such a process is that (a) the business needs are not changing over the time that the development takes and (b) that user feedback from observing the system in action after each iteration is either not useful or will not change anything. Another assumption is that the upfront requirements are not gold plated (although to keep them stable during the project your end users basically are required to come up with an all-emcompassing christmas wishlist). I've NEVER seen a project were these assumptions were correct. As a result, I believe that true iterative development is essential to keep the process on target and cost effective.I would advocate that your UEX team looks a bit ahead (maybe 2-3 iterations) on what will be delivered by then, interacts with the dev team and the customers to define the stories for the next iteration and gathers user feedback from the current system to feed it into the next iteration. By doing so, the dev team can incrementally refine the software based on actual user feedback while avoiding designing and implementing features that are not of a high urgency/priority. On the other hand, your UEX team can help the dev team to come up with a usable software system.Frank
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Robert Davis
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:22 AM
Subject: [agile-usability] Re:are you making efficient designs?
This is a related comment/question from a non-tech perspective -- my UEX firm is partnering with a big agile development firm on a consumer-facing web project -- and we're adapting our "waterfall" (everyone loves to cringe when they say that, like we have been lepers and will be cured now) web development method to agile, and vice-versa.
We've created the UE analogue to the enterprise architecture -- an experience model for how this whole site will work and be organized, prior to beginning iterations, as an expression of the business requirements. (and then broken it down into stories) but now we are strugglign over a couple other things I think we should work out as inputs "all at once" -- metadata architecture for the CMS and some other uses, and the content strategy so we can agree on 3 templates for content presentation (lots of articles and stuff.)
The dev team is advocating to do metadata and content templates "just in time" in the iteratio! ns.
It's a major sticking point for us. I'm very interested in the agile method and like a lot of the ways it refocuses attention and effort -- but this seems to me to be a place where there is benefit in working some elements out with a system-wide view rather than just in time.
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
- On 2/23/07, Robert Hoekman, Jr. <rhoekmanjr@...> wrote:
> Without any hard feelings intended, the best thing I could do here is to simplyI just got back from another planet, it seems, so pardon me for asking
> stop engaging in this conversation. I'm sorry if this bothers you, but this list is
> simply not what I hoped it would be, and I believe I need to explore my
> interests elsewhere.
dumb questions, but what *did* you expect? I myself do a lot of agile
UX (note, small 'a'; there is no Agile) and I'm on this list, so I'm
curious about your "Great Wall of Agile on this list"; what is it?
Sure, a lot of people have *their* meaning of Agile and their way of
doing things, and as you say, that's ok. Do you feel some people
advocate only one way of Agile, perhaps a tad too much? That their
passion is getting in the way of pragmatism?
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchymist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------