Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Design is compromise

stephango.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: Design is compromise

#41

Post by RealityVoid »

card_zero wrote: post #24
thesumofall wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a compromise can also be a win-win. It balances potentially extreme positions, it adds further perspectives, it forces all parties to consider what is most important to them. If the only alternative to a compromise is no agreement, it may actually be the only way to win

Eh, alright, I agree. That's pretty much what I said, there's a place for compromise, because some disagreements are intractable, but compromise is suboptimal.

Would you say... You have arrived at a compromise? Ba-dum-tshh!

Re: Design is compromise

#42

Post by light_triad »

The terminology can be confusing because in corporate speak being uncompromising can mean being opinionated. Not "we made no tradeoffs" but "we didn't split the difference."

The article means it as tradeoff rather than concession, so the argument is "to avoid design by committee you have to compromise on purpose."

Re: Design is compromise

#43

Post by saghm »

card_zero wrote: post #26
chuckadams wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing everything as a binary win/lose outcome is pretty naïve no matter how much terminology you dress it up with. Also, complaining about downvotes is a good way to attract downvotes.

No it isn't (and no it isn't). I only complain because I hand you all what I believe to be a valuable idea and then somebody reacts by silently making a rude finger gesture at it, and they don't even say why, that's the irritating part. So, what are you saying about framing everything as binary? That actually sounds like what I'm saying is bad: to be uncreative and stubborn and reject any new idea on principle, a Not…

I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted you (I didn't land on this thread until after all of this discussion about downvotes had happened), but I also don't really understand what you think is valuable about the idea you presented. At best, it comes across like semantics about what the correct definition for something is (which seems to come from a prescriptivist take that disagrees with the overwhelmingly common usage of the word, so it's not surprising that it's not being received well).

If the intent was to share an interesting fact about the origin of the word, then that would be something I'd find interesting, but quite often tone ends up mattering as much as content, and the way you've phrased it doesn't make it clear at all that's what your intent is rather than sounding like you're saying that everyone here is ignorant except you. Whether or not that's accurate (and for the record I don't think it is, since I tend to consider a definition that doesn't fit what people actually mean as irrelevant), generally convincing people that they're wrong requires a lot of careful communication. At the end of the day, you have to decide whether you're commenting because you genuinely want to convince people of something or just because you want to say it regardless of the outcome; if you're motivated by the former, then how people react to your tone is tautologically the measure of whether you need to change it or not, and if you're motivated by the latter, you're going to have to accept that downvotes are an inevitable consequence when you're saying things that people don't agree with in a way that they don't like.

Re: Design is compromise

#44

Post by card_zero »

RealityVoid wrote: post #41
card_zero wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, alright, I agree. That's pretty much what I said, there's a place for compromise, because some disagreements are intractable, but compromise is suboptimal.

Would you say... You have arrived at a compromise? Ba-dum-tshh!

Ohohoho. I'd say this is actually an example of a third thing, where it turns out that you didn't even disagree, except in choice of words.

Re: Design is compromise

#46

Post by necovek »

20k wrote: post #25
pixl97 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you give someone a problem, they can find a solution, but if you give them a dilemma then a compromise is almost a given.

True dilemmas are rare though, often it just means insufficient investigation of your requirements

I disagree, we are faced with "true dilemmas" every day numerous times, not even limited to work and creation — e.g. you might be going to a shop to buy crackers, and while you have a preferred brand, a new entrant might be half the price — do you use the opportunity to try the new one, or get the tried-and-true?

These types of things are ubiquitous when designing and building products — how do you communicate to your users, how much you communicate and how much you automate, how do you target slightly different users (new customer vs old one used to old patterns in your product), what use-case is the most important one (by customer type, customer numbers, and how commonly they do something...), etc.

Re: Design is compromise

#47

Post by minraws »

Every decision is a compromise, if it's not a compromise then it's not a decision just pure delusion or worse mis-engineering or perhaps there was never a decision there to begin with.

Design is one of the clearest examples, since it's filled with decisions about stuff, but just picking how you type which keyboard you use everything is a compromise. If perfect things existed everything and everyone would have naturally converged on it over enough time, but we rarely seem to see that happen outside monopolies built on network effects or extreme subsidisation.

Re: Design is compromise

#48

Post by card_zero »

saghm wrote: post #43
card_zero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't (and no it isn't). I only complain because I hand you all what I believe to be a valuable idea and then somebody reacts by silently making a rude finger gesture at it, and they don't even say why, that's the irritating part. So, what are you saying about framing everything as binary? That actually sounds like what I'm saying is bad: to be uncreative and stubborn and reject any new idea on principle, a Not…

I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted you (I didn't land on this thread until after all of this discussion about downvotes had happened), but I also don't really understand what you think is valuable about the idea you presented. At best, it comes across like semantics about what the correct definition for something is (which seems to come from a prescriptivist take that disagrees with the overwhelmingly common usag…

Oh, so people are annoyed at me because they aren't getting the point, maybe? The commenter who mentioned Steven Covey knew what I was talking about. It's not just semantics ... or, wait a minute, are you saying everybody secretly knows that what they call compromises ought ideally to be creative mutual preferences, and not involve either or both of the parties having to put up with things and having their goals degraded? Maybe you all know that already. That would be excellent, if it's commonly understood.

It's a valuable idea, because otherwise what you get is an established habit of bad resolutions to disputes, where it becomes normal and is seen as virtuous for everybody to settle for half-measures. The article, which is very short, might be promoting that mindset, for all I can tell. In fact it clearly states it:

> The more you tip the scale on one side, the weaker something else will be. That’s okay!

No, it isn't okay, and that's a shitty zero-sum uncreative way to view the world.

Re: Design is compromise

#49

Post by necovek »

zkmon wrote: post #15
Waterluvian wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To join in the pedantry: I always see optimization as being about compromise. Free wins that are strictly superior aren’t optimizations, they’re just doing it properly. Optimization is to make certain properties better, usually at the cost of others.

Optimization is not same as compromise. Optimization is about having freedom to tweak the parameters with the goal of maximzing somthing. Compromise focuses on lack of freedom. The terms focus on different areas of the overall situation. Design happens within the optimization context, which is shaped by the constraints.

Compromise is one technique in doing optimization: as someone mentioned, you could be maximizing a known good property of your product with no ill-effects on any other property. But you might be optimizing an overall experience for two needs, which means balancing potentially conflicting goals, and choosing imperfect solution for both — some might use the term "compromise" for this.

Other terms are in use, like "balance" or "trade-off" from the OP or... But I believe the message is clear in that the OP believes majority of design is about balancing opposing forces and their tension and they call that compromising.

Re: Design is compromise

#50

Post by atomicnature »

Not necessarily.

Higher-level design often involves dissolving apparent tensions or opposites through layering or more sophisticated mechanisms, while preserving the benefits of both.

Example ->

Proposition: "Phew, we have to choose between convenience and security."

Naive design: "Let's find a watered-down compromise."

Good design: "Let's layer security on top of convenience by designing the system so users don't have to choose, or water either one down."

Great companies have a history of dissolving apparent contradictions under a single roof via good design.

Post reply on HN