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

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: Design is compromise

#61

Post by necovek »

atomicnature wrote: post #50

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 ha…

Some might actually say that they found "a perfect compromise" where both use-cases are served well — this seems to be very much a linguistic preference today, regardless of the fact that "compromise" originally came from "making concessions".

Re: Design is compromise

#62

Post by card_zero »

saghm wrote: post #58
card_zero wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 degr…

> 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 I mean, sure, if you think that there's literally no way for you to improve how you communicate to more effectively convey your ideas, then yes it's because of the other people and not something you can address. One person getting the point isn't a sign that everyone e…

It's fine, I got a conversation, that's all I wanted. Thank you, by the way. No, I won't modify my behavior. :)

Re: the definition, that's exactly what I said in the first place! "Often people don't make the distinction and call both things compromises", I said. I'm promoting making the distinction because I think it matters, a lot.

Re: Design is compromise

#63

Post by zer00eyz »

atomicnature wrote: post #50

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 ha…

Sometimes good design is that there is NO compromise.

The choices made that lead to the 737max disaster are a great example of what happens when NO isnt allowed to be an option.

Re: Design is compromise

#64

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

card_zero wrote: post #60
necovek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obviously using a newly defined phrase "mutual preference" which does not seem to be familiar to most people and a quick search does not bring anything of value for me (there is "mutual preference method", but that's about matching people to one another). I — among others — believe that "sweet spot", "balanced", "trade-off" and even "compromise" are good enough words to describe a solution that achieves good…

But those describe a different thing. I use "mutual preference" carefully. Dale Carnegie described this in 1936. I don't remember what term he used for it, if any. But instead of any trade-off, which I will repeat is a lose-lose because both sides settle for an inferior version of their idea, you create a new idea which satisfies the spirit of what both sides wanted - quite likely satisfies it better than what they f…

That’s fairly classic CBDM (Consensus-Based Decision-Making).

Sometimes, it works nicely; other times, you end up with The Abilene Paradox[0].

Group creativity is a crapshoot. Sometimes, lots of crap shoots out.

Ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

Re: Design is compromise

#65

Post by necovek »

card_zero wrote: post #60
necovek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obviously using a newly defined phrase "mutual preference" which does not seem to be familiar to most people and a quick search does not bring anything of value for me (there is "mutual preference method", but that's about matching people to one another). I — among others — believe that "sweet spot", "balanced", "trade-off" and even "compromise" are good enough words to describe a solution that achieves good…

But those describe a different thing. I use "mutual preference" carefully. Dale Carnegie described this in 1936. I don't remember what term he used for it, if any. But instead of any trade-off, which I will repeat is a lose-lose because both sides settle for an inferior version of their idea, you create a new idea which satisfies the spirit of what both sides wanted - quite likely satisfies it better than what they f…

I do not think anyone disagrees with that — ideally, you get two ideas to meet and satisfy them completely (or two people to agree on the solution working for them both). But even a new idea comes from someone, and you might still have egos to deal with where one party won't budge if it wasn't from them.

But what people are stating (me included) is that in majority of cases, you are actually dealing with conflicting goals and outcomes so it is really the art of making decisions that allow you to do a good creative job within a set of needs.

So it is really more of a "yes, and" to you — with nobody disputing that you should first try to find a solution that meets multiple goals, people are finding that it's not just hard, but sometimes impossible to do so and really talking about this what we perceive to be "majority of our work" in operating within this "yes, and..." zone.

This is also why we have so many different tools for superficially the same job: from knives, forks and spoons (and yes, a spork ;-)), over accounting software, cars, shoes, clothes, phone sizes and underlying operating systems...

I mean, it'd be great if there was one tool I could use to eat my hot soup on a cold day, and shovel snow in the street, but... Yes, one could eg. imagine a way where one thing could do both where it's about eating a soup and cleaning snow (perhaps a straw-based system that sprinkles hot soup onto snow while having a junction to feed me too? :)), but the OP was using "compromise" in a way where he splits the two needs and focuses only on one.

And while this example seems far-fetched, it is not unusual in the world of software :)

Re: Design is compromise

#67

Post by necovek »

card_zero wrote: post #57
necovek wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not your entire comment rely on a very particular ("original") definition of the word compromise — so, uhm, on "choice of words"?

You're saying that a definition of compromise as "concessions on both sides" is strange and original, really? Did you understand the word compromise to mean a process to which creativity is crucial, and not concessions? I'd be very surprised (and pleased) if that was how you understood the word already. It's not how it's portrayed in the article.

I would say that creativity is crucial to a good, working compromise. You do not need much creativity for a bad one (it sounds like you are focusing on that type of compromise).

I am not saying that the "original" definition of "concessions on both sides" is strange at all though — merely that this was the original (first) meaning of the word, but that it is today used for both indicating a successful idea that meets multiple goals when they are re-evaluated by their spirit, and a set of concessions that meet some but not all of the original goals or their spirit.

Re: Design is compromise

#68

Post by kepano »

coldtea wrote: post #54

> Compromise is neither good nor bad, it’s something we do every day. It’s decision making. Prioritizing. Deciding that one thing is more important than another. It's AI slop. Edit: as pointed to me, it says 2018. I'd be damned. Guess that makes it merely part of the "LinkedIn post" training set pushing AI towards such style!

This essay was published in December 2018.

Re: Design is compromise

#70

Post by bryzaguy »

I fundamentally disagree with the premise. Why are we attempting to change the meaning of the word compromise? “compromise” and “has trade-offs” are NOT synonymous. The antithesis of compromise is to make strong decisions that WILL alienate people, but will better target your intended audience. That, IMHO, is a great thing.
Post reply on HN