Robby on Rails: Category d3

Embracing Chaos, part 1

Robby Russell — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:21:00 -0600

Consider this part one of several posts on my thoughts of the art of embracing chaos.

Don’t let the books fool you. The construction of custom software is an unmastered and volatile cesspool of chaos. I don’t adhere to the belief that there is a perfect methodology or process that will work for every project… as I’m sure many of you don’t.

Unlike bowling, you’ll never achieve a perfect score. Even in bowling, It’s unlikely that anybody will learn how to bowl a perfect score and do so on every game for the rest of their career.

You’ll never meet every expectation that a client has on every project.

You’ll never meet every expectation that a user has when they interact with your application.

Expectations are an interesting thing.

Your project might get widely adopted and embraced, but you’re still trying to control chaos.

It’s chaos. Pure chaos¹.

So, why do we bother? Why do we try so hard when the odds aren’t in our favor?

To be continued…

¹ Chaos Theory, Wikipedia

Embracing Failure, part 1

Robby Russell — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:38:00 -0500

I’m currently reading To Engineer is Human, by Henry Petroski and found the following applicable to software development and managing client and customer expectations.

“As much as it is human to make mistakes, it is also human to want to avoid them. Murphy’s Law, holding that anything that can go wrong will, is not a law of nature but a joke. All the light bulbs that last until we tire of the lamp, all the shoelaces that outlast their shoes, all the automobiles that give trouble-free service until they are traded in have the last laugh on Murphy. Just as he will not outlive his law, so nothing manufactured can be or is expected to last forever. Once we recognize this elementary fact, the possibility of a machine or a building being as near to perfect for its designed lifetime as its creators may strive to be for theirs is not only a realistic goal but also a reasonable expectation for consumers. It is only when we set ourselves such an unrealistic goal as buying a shoelace that will never break, inventing a perpetual motion machine, or building a vehicle that will never break down that we appear to be fools and not rational beings.”

I’m sure that most of us are guilty of having high expectations for products that we purchased. (why does my ipod screen scratch so easily when in my pocket?) We also set high expectations for the code that we develop, which is why we (hopefully) continue to refine our process. We’re bound to time and budget constraints, which often prevent us from testing every imaginable edge case. Given our constraints, problems are almost always going to arise. It’s no wonder that we see Test-Driven Development as an important part of a healthy development process. We want to catch our failures as early as possible.

Our clients often have high expectations and it’s almost always very reasonable. That’s not to say that some clients will not have highly irrational expectations. It’s our job to manage these expectations as best as possible.

Do we mislead our clients by convincing them that our TDD/BDD process is going to prevent any bugs from creeping from the woodwork after the development cycle is finished?

“I thought that we paid you to fully test the code?”

Really… is that even possible? Can we predict (and test) every possible interaction within an application? Highly unlikely.

What we can do is plan for and embrace failure. We can help our clients understand that almost every application needs to be maintained after it’s initial development cycle. Bugs are inevitable and there needs to be a clear process for handling them.

Perhaps I’m abusing the bug fixing process by calling it a failure… but I’ve also found that yes… many bugs are due to failure. Whether that be a failure to specify application behavior, a failure to understand the project goals, a failure in communication, ...or maybe a failure in our software architecture. We’re constantly failing.. and it’s okay!

IT’S OKAY TO FAIL! (some of the time…)

“No one wants to learn by mistakes, but we cannot learn enough from successes to go beyond the state of the art. Contrary to their popular characterization as intellectual conservatives, engineers are really among the avant-garde. They are constantly seeking to employ new concepts to reduce the weigh and thus the cost of their structures, and they are constantly striving to do more with less so the resulting structure represents an efficient use of materials. The engineer always believes he is trying something without error, but the truth of the matter is that each new structure can be a new trial. In the meantime the layman, whose spokesman is often a poet or writer, can be threatened by both the failures and the successes. Such is the nature not only of science and engineering, but of all human endeavors.”

As we’re creating these virtual structures… are we really taking the time to reflect on our failures? This is why some teams adopt practices like iteration retrospectives and post-mortems.

I’ll end this with a few questions, which I hope that you’ll share your experiences about…

In what ways is your team embracing the failures of your development projects?
How do you help manage your clients expectations… so that they too can plan for and embrace failure? Isn’t their new business venture on the web… likely to experience some failure?

We have so much to learn…

Poor Communication and IT Projects

Robby Russell — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:25:00 -0500

InformationWeek has a short story titled, Poor Communications, Unrealistic Scheduling Lead To IT Project Failure.

“Communications failures top the list of reasons IT projects fail, according to poll results from the Computing Technology Industry Association.

About 28% of 1,000 respondents identified poor communications as the main cause of project failure, according to CompTIA, which offers project management training.”

So, while we’re all spending so much of our time focused on improving our technical skills, are we also investing our time into becoming communication superstars?

If you look back at the following posts, you’ll see some links to some excellent books on this topic.

Seth Godin on Dialogue

Robby Russell — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:37:00 -0600

It appears that Seth Godin is catching on to the concept of Dialogue.

Seth writes, “Some organizations are good at listening. Some are good at talking. A few are even good at both.”

I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about how I listen to clients, employees, friends, and family. All of our relationships are a series of conversations. Sometimes we can have healthy dialogue, sometimes we just fall victim to debate. (see Dialogue vs Debate)

If you’re really interested in Dialogue, I’d encourage you to review the technology of Dialogue... and check out the Dialogue-Driven Development project and introduce yourself.

Please Make Fun of the Boss

Robby Russell — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:26:00 -0600

While reviewing some articles related to small business management, I came across the following post… titled, Note From Boss to Employees, by Michael Wade. As a young business owner, who only 16 months ago was working in his attic… to now trying to figure out how to run a company with over ten employees (and growing), posts like this remind me that we all have so much to learn. :-)

Here are a few that I appreciated…

“I may not have been given a huge amount of training before being named to a supervisory position. As a result, I’ve had to learn through trial and error. That’s not always bad. Many of my responsibilities can only be learned through practice.”

Yep… that’s me! The only difference is that I promoted myself instead of being promoted by someone else. I’m still not sure what I got myself into sometimes. ;-)

“I will make mistakes. Please give me the same understanding that you’d like me to give you when you blunder.”

This reminded me of a blog post from last year, titled, Avoiding the most common software development goofs, which points out that things like ignorance and stress are often to blame for mistakes in development. I feel like these are reasons for goofs in just about any environment, especially business. Let’s face it. We’re not perfect and we’re going to make a lot of mistakes. Once we’ve agreed on this, let’s take the next step and see what happens.

“If I do something dumb or am on the verge of doing so, please tell me. Don’t hint. Tell me.”

Perhaps this is a common problem for most small business owners. Are employees afraid to tell me that I’m doing something dumb?

“If either of us has a problem with the other’s performance, let’s talk about it.”

As they say, real friends will be honest with you about your faults. Not because they want to make you look bad, but because they care.

Each of the points that I have listed here are pointing to is… healthier Dialogue, which is always a challenge to accomplish… in any relationship… whether with clients, coworkers, bosses, or employees.

I’d like to add a few to this list.

It’s easier to ask for forgiveness, than to ask for permission.
I’m still trying to get the hang of this GTD stuff, so.. you might remind me if I forgot something.
Ask yourself on a regular basis, “Am I having fun?” If not, make time for some.
Please make fun of the boss! :-)

Those that Tend the Store need Dialogue

Robby Russell — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:18:00 -0600

I’ve been keeping my eye on a series of blog posts by Chad Fowler, which he calls The Big Rewrite.

Today, Chad posted an entry titled, Who’s Tending the Store? He writes…

“the experts keep the old system running while the new system is being built. So, who builds the new system? Not the experts, that’s who. Usually, it’s people like me: technology experts. And while we’re banging away at the existing system’s UI, trying to figure out what needs to be coded, the domain experts are doing their jobs. Unfortunately, this means the domain experts aren’t watching the Big Rewrite very closely. Regardless of how good the team, if communication is impaired between the domain experts and the technology experts, things are going to move slowly, and wrong software is going to be created.”

I wanted to follow up on this issue as it’s an area of great interest to me.

I feel like this issue runs deeper and while it’s important to be mindful of the communication between domain and technology experts, it’s a good idea for each of us to take a break every few days (or everyday) to assess our perceptions in all areas of the project. More specifically, I’m suggesting that in order for us to be effective in our communication, we must make time to refactor our perceptions about the state of a project. From the design, to the development, to team communication, to the schedule, and all the way to customer satisfaction… or what Martin Fowler calls, Customer Affinity. These things are not static and we must see them as extremely dynamic variables… much more dynamic than our wonderful language of choice.

When Brian Ford and I started discussing Dialogue-Driven Development (d3), we were initially focused on an area that always seems to come up in projects. Client communication. From managing expectations to delivering the right product, d3 has become an essential tool in our team’s tool belt. We refactored our entire Design and Development process (and it’s always evolving) to focus on the things that we felt were the most important to a successful project. Clients come to us in search of expertise and guidance so that we can build them innovative solutions. When it comes to this process, clients deserve simplicity.

For starters, we’re misguided

If there is one thing that I have learned, it is that our initial perceptions are often misguided. We have to work really hard to think critically, not only of the problem we’re trying to build a solution for, but also of how we, ourselves, are actually looking at the problem. It’s easy to fall victim to tunnel vision. I often find myself having to take a step back from problems on a very regular basis. While I have no scientific proof to back this, it seems to feels natural for us to keep firing once we pull the trigger. It’s important to re-aim.

Chad raises a very important topic and leaves readers to think about the problem. After thinking about this, it’s my opinion that in order for the domain and technology experts to be effective, they need healthy collaboration. But, I feel like this applies to many other areas of our process as well.

Is there even a problem?

So, what is the solution? Better yet, what is the problem? Is there even a problem?

How can we avoid situations where communication becomes impaired? We’ve all been there. We know how to spot impaired communication, but how can we spot it… before we perceive it as too late? How can we recover from it? What causes the communication to break down? What if… it were possible to repair the situation?

These questions don’t have easy answers. These are complicated problems that reach far beyond the development community. These are the same problems that all members of organizations, communities, countries, and planets all face, each and every day.

Take action!

While it’s important to make sure we’re engaging in healthy dialogue through a project, bad things will happen. They are inevitable. As Agilists, we’re accepting this as a fact of (project) life and should be prepared to take action. If you see communication being impaired, it’s time to step up and help the team out. Otherwise, you’re only hurting yourself… and your colleagues.

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.”—Mahatma Gandhi

If these sorts of topics are of interest to you, I encourage you to join the Dialogue-Driven community and help us figure this stuff out!

Don't Over Promise

Robby Russell — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:02:00 -0600

This was from a discussion a few weeks ago on the Dialogue-Driven Development mailing list.

Bob listed five things that promotes dialogue.

Active Listening
Agenda Control
Trust
Follow-Up/Follow-Through
Don’t Over Promise

“Don’t Over Promise; In business, it seems about half wait until the last minute and the other half hasn’t a clue about what’s really involved in making any sort of quality effort at something (look at the dismal record on software project performance in the CHAOS report and others). If you overpromise/underdeliver against expectations; you’ll damage both trust and future dialogue. Don’t commit to situations where there’s any doubt in your mind regarding your ability to perform. It doesn’t matter as much about capability (since we all like the challenge) as much as it does about raw capacity (in terms of time) to perform within the established timeframe.”

The list has been about as dormant as my blog has the past several weeks. I’m currently reading through King Arthur’s Round Table, by David Perkins, which focuses on different conversation styles and Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, by William Isaacs. I hope to share some of what I learn on my blog and with the list. :-)

This Week in d3: 2

Robby Russell — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:53:00 -0500

I missed a week… but last week, Brian wrote about one of the Principles of d3: simplicty.

“As a principle of d3, we want our client interaction to be simpler. So we want to talk about problems with our clients. We want these to be the concrete, explicit elements we dialogue about.” (read more)

Today, I asked on the Dialogue-Driven Development mailing list, “What are some elements in group interaction (clients, colleagues, users) that prevent healthy Dialogue from taking place?”

“The biggest element that I’ve seen that harms dialogue is an emotionalattachment to some idea or decision… ...When people are emotionally attached to one particular point of view, they have a difficult time making objective, rational decisions.”—David Goodlad

“The biggest problem that we have is semi-literate users thinking too soon about implementation details about the solution, rather than considering the true nature of the problem instead.”—James Adam

This resulted in me thinking up a new term for this horrible infection… implementitus.

“One of the biggest problems I’m continuously having to overcome is physical proximity. I’m a firm believer in kicking off a project with a face-to-face meeting, but when working remotely, and not having an on-site customer to easily communicate with your skills has a communicator must be greatly increased.”—Josh Knowles

“Fortune-telling the user’s reaction.
“The user wouldn’t like this.”
“This user wants this button there.”
“That would confuse the user.”

Of course, user opinion should be critically important, but in my experience it’s often used as a veto that doesn’t have to be explained just because someone doesn’t like an idea. I’ve done this, myself.”—Brasten Sager

I’m really excited to get the interact with other people who are facing the same types of obstacles that we are. Being a successful developer requires a lot of discipline and it’s our goal to enhance our communication skills… so that we can reach shared meaning with our colleagues, clients, and users.

If developer to client, developer to developer, or developer to user interaction is important to you… come talk with us in the Dialogue-Driven Development project.

Teams Need Healthy Collaboration

Robby Russell — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:05:00 -0500

A few weeks ago, I was explaining some of the concepts behind Dialogue-Driven Development to Michael Buffington and when I said that we were working to create patterns of Dialogue... his immediate thoughts were on code. I don’t remember the exactly how he worded it.. but he basically thought we were working on a parsing tool for grabbing requirements out of emails, messages, etc. I quickly explained that d3 had nothing to do with actual code and was merely a practice that we as developers and consultants are using to think about our interaction with clients, users, and amongst ourselves.

Just last night, I was chatting with a friend of mine about d3… (names changed to protect the guilty)

context: Harry works in a development team¹ of about ten people and Paul is one of his “team”mates.


  Harry: i guess it prevents discussion domination
   me: yeah, that happens as it is sometimes
  Harry: and ensures equal contribution
  Harry: paul does that 
    and he's not very polite about it either
    and will often raise his voice and speak over you
    which is crazy
    kindergarten stuff
  me: hah
  Harry: need a talking stick!

This happens all too often amongst ourselves. While we’re striving to improve our client interaction… we often overlook our own internal struggles to achieve healthy collaboration. It takes discipline by every individual in a collaborative environment to really think together.

So, how does d3 address this? Well, it’s our goal that through mindful dialogue, we can cultivate healthier collaboration in all of our professional (and personal) relationships.

I would also like to point out a few common misconceptions about d3.

d3 is not a methodology… nor a replacement for Scrum or XP. d3 is a thoughtful practice that focuses on the collaboration between a group of individuals, whether they be clients, developers, managers, or users.
d3 is not a Silver Bullet, but it can be used as effective ammunition.
d3 is not something you learn in a weekend, but you might be able to find a good book on Dialogue and have a new perspective on how you communicate with others.

Dialogue-Driven Development is about being in the conversation as it is happening… and really listening.

The next time that you’re getting ready to interact with your teammates, ask yourself:

Am I contributing something meaningful?
Am I listening to others well?
Is everybody contributing an equal share of information?

If you’re quiet, try to speak up more. If you talk too much, be mindful of how much you may dominate a conversation. If you’re not participating at all.. why are you there?

¹ You’ll be happy to know that Harry also gave his two-weeks notice yesterday.

The Circular Perspective of BDD

Robby Russell — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:56:00 -0500

A few weeks ago, Brian Ford was in my office and we were discussing BDD and how we can make this process even easier for our clients to understand… much less our own internal staff. With all concepts, each person has their own idea about what it is, why it is important, regardless of whether or not it’s accurate. This can cause some people to not find a good need for some practices.

During our discussion, Brian grabbed one of my whiteboard markers and drew diagrams to explain how he saw BDD vary from TDD. He has since posted an article on his blog titled, what’s it worth to me, and discusses his circular view of Behavior-Driven Developent and the importance of using Dialogue to evolve shared meaning.

Dialogue versus Debate

Robby Russell — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:40:00 -0500

How many times have you participated in a conversation with someone and realized that you really didn’t understand what they had said. Or… perhaps you’ve been talking and even though the other person is nodding, you’re not confident that they’ve really heard what you’ve been saying. Yet, you might find yourself nodding in agreement when they speak… and walk away… totally clueless about what you just talked about.

Were you really listening? Were they speaking over your head? Were you speaking over their head? Perhaps you were distracted? Whatever the reason… it’s probably worth thinking about. We all do it from time to time.

Even worse, you were only thinking about how they were wrong and you had the right answer already in your head…

In Dialogue, there are rules for participation, which we’ll explore in future writings.

One might wonder if we’ve been trained to work this way. In school, we had classes that taught us to debate one another… further cultivating a society focused on you versus I. But, what about the community? What about the team? What about us? Sadly, most of the teamwork that we saw encouraged was in the form of sports. To be fair… we did have debate teams… but the purpose was to argue for one side of an argument… not to find a way for both sides to work together. One might wonder our society would be like if we encouraged Dialogue in the same way.

Perhaps we need Dialogue teams. ;-)

Dialogue allows teams of people to work together. It’s a process that cultivates learning and discovery. Dialogue is not a process that encourages the passing of judgement or pushing for specific outcomes… the aim is to share understanding. Through empathetic listening and questioning, the seeds of trust are planted.

Dialogue-Driven Development is about building trust.

I came across this great table, which contrasts Dialogue and Debate. It’s worth taking a few moments to review.

Here are a few that caught my attention…

Dialogue	Debate
Dialogue is collaborative: the sides work together.	Debate is a type of fight: two sides oppose each other to prove each other wrong.
In a dialogue the goals are finding common ideas and new ideas.	In a debate the goals is winning with your own ideas.
In a dialogue you contribute your best ideas to be improved upon.	In a debate you contribute your ideas and defend them against challenges.
In a dialogue you listen to each other to understand and build agreement.	In a debate you listen to each other to find flaws and disagree.
In a dialogue you may consider new ideas and even change your mind completely.	In a debate you do not admit you are considering new ideas and you must not change your mind, or you lose.
Dialogue encourages you to evaluate yourself.	Debate encourages you to criticize others.
Dialogue promotes open-mindedness, including an openness to being wrong.	Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right.

There is something to be said about the art of Dialogue, which is why we’re so excited about the d3 project.

This Week in d3: 1

Robby Russell — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:01:00 -0500

As overheard on the d3 mailing list...

“My strategy so far is to unemotionally ask them to step back for a minute from the “I want this feature” phrase. Start thinking about value delivered to the user; start thinking about HOW the user is going to use whatever information or functionality you’re delivering to them.”—David Goodlad

“People have emotional attachments, pet ideas, favorite ways of doing things, and they are quick to impose those, under the guise of “business requirments”.”—Brian Ford

“Dialogue-Driven Development has the opportunity to step up in this environment and redefine the interaction between customers and developers.”—Brasten Sager (link)

..we’re just getting started. ;-)

If developer to client, developer to developer, or developer to user interaction is important to you… come talk with those of us involved in the Dialogue-Driven Development project.

Announcing the Dialogue-Driven Development Project

Robby Russell — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:30:00 -0500

I woke up this morning and came across an article written by Brasten Sager, titled, Of Dialogue and Development in which he discusses his initial (and healthy) criticism of Dialogue-Driven Development.

But d3 is an evolving thing. Its earliest forms offered very little definition, leading me to believe there was little to it. As it has evolved the goals and mindset of d3 and its proponents have become a little more clear, and after further consideration I’m now convinced that my original critiques may have been wrong.

I encourage you to read his article, which offers ideas (and diagrams) on how d3 might be injected into your existing process.

A small number of interested developers have been sending us questions about d3 and were wondering what the next step was for the community. We’re working hard on outlining patterns of dialogue, which is where we plan to put of our focus into. A small group of people have joined our mailing list and IRC channel over the past few weeks, where some conversations have occurred. After reading through Brasten’s post, I believe that our IRC conversation last week was a good example of how people with different ideas about something… can come together and have a shared understanding, which is exactly what Dialogue-Driven Development is about.

Through shared understanding, we can accomplish so much more.

“In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change.” —Thich Nhat Hanh

Thanks to the hard work of Brian Ford, we now have a website to announce, which will be the portal to various conversations, patterns, and resources related to Dialogue-Driven Development.

http://www.dialogue-driven.org

Project Enlightenment with d3

Robby Russell — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:38:00 -0500

What do we mean exactly when we say that we want to participate in thoughtful dialogue in a project? What is our intention with this? When I recently came across some essays by David Gurteen and read his definition of dialogue as being “a disciplined form of conversation” it got me thinking about how we often forget that like all skills, practice makes perfect. What make our conversations discilplined in the first place? Based on my experience, dialogue (disciplined conversation) manifests when all participants in a conversation are practicing mindfulness. I don’t believe that most people learn or behave well by being beaten into submission, so we must come to an understanding while we actively involve ourselves in dialogue. Most of us are civil towards one another, which does wonders for allowing us to tolerate each other, but I still can’t help but feel that we’re still missing the mark when it comes to having consistent and thoughtful dialogue.

Over the past several months, our team has been spending quite a bit of time and energy analyzing these problems. What we really starting to uncover is that the real problem seems to exist somewhere outside of our development methodologies. Working under the Agile umbrella provides no silver bullet. The real issues seem to exist much deeper in our human nature.

We’re not all that great at communicating

Humans are not perfect… therefore… our ideas are probably far from perfect as well. Our thoughts aren’t perfect. Our interactions aren’t perfect. We’re consistently inconsistent (heh) and while we can rely on averages to some extent to calculate probabilities, we can’t always explain why somethings still go horribly wrong. The principles outlines in the Agile manifesto stress the importance of focusing on people not processes and responding to change. If we are to put a heavy focus on the people involved in projects, we must acknowledge our strengths and weaknesses and find innovative ways to improve our communication skills.

On a daily basis, we’re faced with complex problems. Hopefully, we’re using a lot of our prior experience to aid us in making rational decisions about how we respond to them. There is a lot that goes through each decision that we make. We can’t automate this process (yet), but we can definitely share our lessons with one another. Our intentions need to be thoughtful and empathetic to the needs of all parties affected by each decision. As humans, we have the opportunity to really listen to the concerns of others and use not only our logical intelligence… but also our emotional intelligence.

Much of this comes down to each of us learning to understand how we make decisions and interact with people. It’s our goal with Dialogue-Driven Development that with your help, we’ll be able to outline patterns of dialogue, which we hope will be of great value to the community. Our team has been analyzing our interaction with clients and discussing what has worked well and what hasn’t. How did our clients respond to approach X versus Y? It’s important that we capture this information and have conversations about the results.

“The meaning is what holds it [dialogue] together. ..Meaning is not static – it is flowing. And if we have the meaning being shared, then it is flowing among us; it holds the group together…in that way we can talk together coherently and think together.” – David Bohm

Doesn’t that sound beautiful? Who wouldn’t want to reach such levels of project enlightenment?

d3 aims to be to communication what BDD is to specification

While at RailsConf Europe, I had the privilege to speak with several Rail developers… several of which are doing contract development for several clients, just like our team. We discussed d3 for a while and I walked away feeling really excited about the whole concept. When I explained that our team didn’t see d3 as a replacement for Agile methodologies like Scrum, XP, etc… but as another tool in our tool belt. Dialogue between developers, clients, and users should be agnostic about particular methodologies. We’re really excited about Behavior-Driven Development as a best practice in our development process and we’re seeing Dialogue-Driven Development as another best practice that we start using from the initial point of contact with a potential client to long after we deliver the working product that we were contracted to develop.

We’ll be posting some fun announcements about the d3 project in the coming week(s). Stay tuned…

Matz on Considering Interface

Robby Russell — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:11:00 -0500

...back in Portland after being in London and New York City for the past two weeks. It’s nice to be home. :-)

I came across this interview with Matz earlier today. It was published almost three years ago (pre-Rails)... I’m quite intrigued by what he is advocating here…

Bill Venners: You also mentioned in your ten top tips: “Be nice to others. Consider interface first: man-to-man, man-to-machine, and machine-to-machine. And again remember the human factor is important.” What do you mean by, “consider interface first?”
Yukihiro Matsumoto: Interface is everything that we see as a user. If my computer is doing very complex things inside, but that complexity doesn’t show up on the surface, I don’t care. I don’t care if the computer works hard on the inside or not. I just want the right result presented in a good manner. So that means the interface is everything, for a plain computer user at least, when they are using a computer. That’s why we need to focus on interface.

Some software people—like weather forecasters, the number crunchers—feel that the inside matters most, but they are a very limited field of computer science. Most programmers need to focus on the surface, the interface, because that’s the most important thing.

Bill Venners: You also mentioned machine-to-machine interfaces, so are you just talking about interfaces for users or also for machines?

Yukihiro Matsumoto: It’s not just user interfaces. When machines are talking to each other via a protocol, they don’t care how the other is implemented on the inside. The important thing is the proper output getting passed correctly via the proper protocol. That’s what matters.
If you have a good interface on your system, and a budget of money and time, you can work on your system. If your system has bugs or is too slow, you can improve it. But if your system has a bad interface, you basically have nothing. It won’t matter if it is a work of the highest craftsmanship on the inside. If your system has a bad interface, no one will use it. So the interface or surface of the system, whether to users or other machines, is very important.

One of things that we’re really advocating with Dialogue-Driven Development is artifact generation. Wireframes and lightweight prototypes are great for generating constructive dialogue between clients, users, and our team. We should make sure that we understand why and how users will use an interface before we worry about the code that will drive it. Too often we fall into a pattern of thinking where we’re convinced that we can build an agnostic application that has various interfaces to a central repository of business logic and data. While we strive for this during development, it really should be focused on after some initial interaction design has been planned. Of course, this is my opinion.

So, I must ask you. When you’re working with on a new project, do you focus on interface or code implementation first?

The Technology of Dialogue

Robby Russell — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:30:00 -0500

In the essay, Dialogue and Organizational Transformation, Glenna Gerard and Linda Teurfs outline the the building blocks of THE TECHNOLOGY OF DIALOGUE, which they suggests consists of:

Suspension of Judgment
Identification of Assumptions
Listening
Inquiry and Reflection

What makes dialogue different than conversation? According to David Gurteen, “dialogue is a disciplined form of conversation.”

Gurteen says that within dialogue¹:

You prefer a certain position but do not cling to it.
You are ready to listen to others.
Your mindset is not one of ‘convincing others that your way is right’ but of asking what you can learn from them.
It is recognizing that other people’s input will help you refine your own ideas or reveal your misconceptions.
It is not argument or debate. It is not win-lose. In dialogue all sides win by coming up with a more appropriate solution than a single person could ever have. It is win-win.

When we first introduced Dialogue-Driven Development, Ryan Allen responded with a brief overview of how you might go about defining a failed project. His first bullet was, “Miscommunication can lead to the implementation of the wrong solutions.”

It is our opinion that many of the problems that lead to failed projects can be solved through consistent and cooperative discourse. Much of this relies on each of us taking ownership of our commitment to encouraging healthy collaboration between developers, clients, and users.

Wikipedia currently describes dialogue as, “a reciprocal conversation between two or more persons.”

Question

What are some of the obstacles that you face when interacting with a diverse set of developers, clients, and users?

¹ The Discipline of Dialogue by David Gurteen