↪ Replying to @d8en
@d8en @UXTweets Exactly! And that would imply that "lovable" isn't a general requirement from the start 😊
Tagged: reply
↪ Replying to @d8en
@d8en @UXTweets Maybe, or I was in a weakened state of mind when I read it. 😊 It does remind me of how ”delight” pops up often in UX, while delight is not necessary for something to be useful or valuable. That word has also been extensively debated, as our industry loves to dissect words :)
↪ Replying to @d8en
@d8en @UXTweets I believe MVP is always dangerous territory. As a term it often confuses more than it helps. For myself it relates to making just enough to test a hypothesis and learn from it. So whether or not something needs to be lovable depends on what you’re trying to learn.
@d8en @UXTweets So if there is no intent to learn and/or learning does not happen, there is no MVP. In my mind, ”viable” relates not to robustness but to the ability of learning enough. And it’s possible what you’re trying to learn is if ”lovable” is important for a specific product.
@d8en @UXTweets I’m personally at odds with the definition of MVP that the article seems to put forward so I don’t feel like I’m helping. 🤨 The dating/marriage metaphor didn’t work for me either.
@d8en @UXTweets To sum up, I think if we focus on co-creation and inclusion, we won’t need to assume what ”lovable” entails for someone else. Instead we’ll have a common focus on value-creation, which may or may not include someone’s definition of ”love”.
↪ Replying to @palace
@palace Lite som Consequentialism då? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequen…
↪ Replying to @palace
@palace Inte så att jag skulle kunna redogöra för innebörden på stående fot.
↪ Replying to @pauspling
@pauspling @SRPP3 Detta: bbc.com/news/technolog…
@pauspling @SRPP3 Och China Cables-läckan, beroende på hur lång tid du får vara med ;)
icij.org/investigations…
↪ Replying to @Scott_Matter
@Scott_Matter True. That's also when I appreciate a 20-minute train wreck rather than a 60-minute one 😁
↪ Replying to @Documentalope
@Documentalope Awesome. We need to find time to talk about this in the future. I should spend more time on expanding on my thinking. Every tweet has the potential for a blog post. 😁
@Documentalope I do find situations where this makes more sense. I am for example with you all the way with website redesigns which happen way too often. Also, when they happen they rarely do enough by way of changing structure, content, goals, etc. So not enough destruction 😊.
@Documentalope And perhaps it’s not one or the other but the speed of both that is the problem, which speaks to how Tatiana was looking at it. Slow micro-destruction and slow micro-improvements in unison.
Anyway, gonna let these thoughts putter around for a while.
↪ Replying to @TatianaTMac
@TatianaTMac I do like where you’re going with this. A process for slow destruction.
All I can think of now are Jenga blocks. 😬
↪ Replying to @TatianaTMac
@TatianaTMac Probably not. I believe I was alluding to how in tech projects it's more common to build atop and increase complexity than tear down. It made me realize how I often would so much prefer tearing down. And then I spun from there 😁
↪ Replying to @unknown
@heather_ia @wheelyweb Down the rabbit hole you go Joe! :)
↪ Replying to @grishund
@grishund Hmmm, du satte verkligen igång prepper-sidan av mig... det här är läskigt. Jag undrar hur många butiker som har en plan för hur de kan ta betalt vid internet-avbrott. Nä, allt är kaos på mindre än 24 timmar.
↪ Replying to @unknown
@gustavgatu Wow. I was actually subtweeting someone else.