31–40 of 104 posts
However, I also think it's a bit of a meta-commentary.
Ultimately it boils down to definition of the word "compromise", so a better article is one that establishes those semantics first.
But constraints are not fixed, you can optimize, discover new techniques and change the space of requirements.
For example thanks to computer scientists we get better and better algorithms for compression, and thanks to hardware companies we get new / faster chips with different models to do new kinds of computation
Thus, you can move the compromise space, by working harder
Absolutely spot-on. However, most folks (not just designers) have a difficult time with compromise, these days. It's become a value judgment (You're "weak," if you compromise). I learned, when I was a kid, that I can't always get what I want (I think that someone even sang about it, way back then). The art of compromise, is one of the most valuable skills I had, during my career, and I'm still at it. In fact, I was j…
Compromise is a lose-lose. It originally meant a promise between two parties to follow the decision of an arbiter. Sometimes this is the best we can hope to do, and right and necessary in order to have nice things: see for instance the Wikipedia essay "The Wrong Version", https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version or the Northern Ireland peace process. However, a mutual preference is a win-win, and is a creati…
Absolutely spot-on. However, most folks (not just designers) have a difficult time with compromise, these days. It's become a value judgment (You're "weak," if you compromise). I learned, when I was a kid, that I can't always get what I want (I think that someone even sang about it, way back then). The art of compromise, is one of the most valuable skills I had, during my career, and I'm still at it. In fact, I was j…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Always_Get_What_Yo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compromise is a lose-lose. It originally meant a promise between two parties to follow the decision of an arbiter. Sometimes this is the best we can hope to do, and right and necessary in order to have nice things: see for instance the Wikipedia essay "The Wrong Version", https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version or the Northern Ireland peace process. However, a mutual preference is a win-win, and is a creati…
Yes, when you can, find "The 3rd Alternative". It's a nice idea I first read about in one of Steven Covey's books. Looks like he eventually wrote a book by that name.
Compromise is the last tool in the designer's toolbox. Before settling with a compromise, the designer should relentlessly try to narrow down what the problem being solved is, while trying out all possibilities, until it looks like there is no solution that matches exactly the problem (or they run out of time). More often than not, a compromise means that the problem wasn't scoped out well enough, and it ends up part…
The problem isn't compromise. It's pretending there isn't one. Every product optimizes for something. The interesting question is what it chose to sacrifice.
Understanding this seems to be essential for leaders in general.
Once constraints are fixed you can choose your tradeoff among dimensions, that’s the compromise. But constraints are not fixed, you can optimize, discover new techniques and change the space of requirements. For example thanks to computer scientists we get better and better algorithms for compression, and thanks to hardware companies we get new / faster chips with different models to do new kinds of computation Thus,…
Absolutely spot-on. However, most folks (not just designers) have a difficult time with compromise, these days. It's become a value judgment (You're "weak," if you compromise). I learned, when I was a kid, that I can't always get what I want (I think that someone even sang about it, way back then). The art of compromise, is one of the most valuable skills I had, during my career, and I'm still at it. In fact, I was j…
I think its just as important to realize ideas themselves can be conflicted or contradictory, and that practical action requires compromise. Many seductive ideas may not be well-formed if you really dig deeply enough. It's not just economic or political pragmatism. Even the solo designer/thinker needs to compromise such untested ideas in search of a realizable system.