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

Re: [agile-usability] What's your definition of done?

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Howard
    Hi Anders, On 17 Aug 2011, at 17:54, Anders Ramsay wrote: [snip] ... [snip] I think it depends on the particular way the debt metaphor is being used. If you re
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Anders,

      On 17 Aug 2011, at 17:54, Anders Ramsay wrote:
      [snip]
      > Defining something that has UX debt as Done means you'll be delivering a
      > half-baked UX, which goes to the core of the UX field's complaint about
      > Agile.
      >
      > IMO, there should be no such thing as UX debt. Either the quality of the
      > experience is appropriate for the product, context, and domain, or it is
      > not. (E.g. for an entertainment product, experience quality should likely
      > be very high, for an enterprise product, this may be less critical.)
      [snip]

      I think it depends on the particular way the debt metaphor is being used.

      If you're using it in the more general "debt is bad" sense then I agree completely. If you produce a poor UX, just like if you produce bad code, and don't care then your product is f*cked in anything but the short term.

      However the metaphor was originally a little bit more nuanced than that. It's more about how taking on a technical debt, and then paying it off later, can be the right thing to do in some circumstances - just like taking on a financial debt. There's a nice video from Ward on the topic here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqeJFYwnkjE (It's only 5mins long).

      Having debt is fine - if it's done in a mindful manner with the intent of paying the debt off.

      Cheers,

      Adrian
      --
      http://quietstars.com adrianh@... twitter.com/adrianh
      t. +44 (0)7752 419080 skype adrianjohnhoward del.icio.us/adrianh
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.