I've tried suggesting this for my team since there are constant complaints of lack of communication. However, the response to this is "we have Teams/Jira/Confluence", but 99% of Jira tickets have no comments for clarification, Confluence has articles that are out of date by 5 years and Teams is never used for clarifying requirements.
It's clearer if you deconstruct the conversation about Jira and then think about the washing hair and shampoo comment. It's a stretch, but when you see it is should make sense.
I ask my team to clarify requirements better. They say that they already have Jira. It's as if they were implying that the presence of a tool (Jira) should be enough to provide clear stories. But it's not about the tool. It's about them not using the tool properly but pointing at the tool (or process) as an excuse.
I ask my son to wash his hair. He says there is shampoo in the shower. It's as if the presence of the shampoo implies that his hair should be clean. It's not about the lack of tooling, but about the fact that he did not wash his hair with the tool that he had available.
People often blame tooling or methodology, but most often its that they don't know how to use the tooling or methodology well. They will say things like "if we only used X our problems would go away." Most likely, they won't.
I posted a lazy comment earlier because I did not have time to type it out. Apologies.
I see, thanks. All analogies are flawed and that's a fact of life but your clarification made it crystal clear.
RE: your work, I would probably fight hard to reduce all the bureaucracy-inviting tools (like Jira). That removes the excuse "we have tools already, why don't we have clear stories?" -- though I am aware that for many people this fight would cost them their job.
He's saying that there's shampoo in the shower but he didn't use it (implied) -- however, the question wasn't about the presence of shampoo in the shower.
Aha, but that's not a rebuttal at all. The son is just stating a rather very loosely connected fact. If I was the father I'd immediately respond with "Yeah, and?".
It's not the lack of communication. IMO, it's the lack of team culture. Keeping documentation up to date is something only the team could do. And it can't be solved by using Confluence/Wiki/mailing lists tools.
I've had to write an entire backend to interface with Sabre - using SOAP/XML - it was anything but straightforward. But yeah, you need surprisingly little information to book/cancel/view flights and PNR data.
As a child one of my favourite scenes from Twister was the successful deployment of "Dorothy" and the data streaming into the laptop with cool colourful visualisations.
Over 20 years later, as a software engineer I decided to recreate the software to finally fulfil that childhood dream!
A reality-bending anomaly game where you are the anomaly: as you interact with items in your environment, you may notice some anomalies. Moving a cookie jar opens the fridge door. Closing the fridge door makes a painting on the wall shrink, and rotating that painting switches the lights on.
The idea is for the game to make logical sense, but make the player sound completely unhinged from reality "I need to put the toaster on top of the oven to make the lamp spin around, that way I can move the lamp across the room near the couch to unlock the next level"
This sounds interesting; how are you guiding the player from one object to the next? E.g. if I'm looking at the fridge, I have to observe the painting shrink or that it's a lot smaller the next time I see it. And if there are a lot of objects in the room, how do I know what's relevant? I'm curious!
I haven't completely decided yet, but I'm thinking of having the next object emit a "scraping" sound as it moves/scales, that way the sound gives you a general idea of the vicinity of where you should be looking. It will take some experimentation to get the balance correct: too easy and the game isn't fun, too difficult and it's just frustrating and tedious.
This is definitely an interesting UX puzzle to solve from a game design perspective. I get what you're saying on finding the right balance.
Beyond sound alerts, some glow effect around an object might help? A tutorial at the start almost seems necessary so people get the mechanics, if you don't have that already. Just my $.02!
I think sound gives just the right amount of help to get you in the general vicinity of the next clue, without completely giving it away. Of course there could be lower difficulty levels with visual indicators as well.
I will definitely be adding a tutorial since the mechanics are so bizarre. I was also going to add an additional mechanic: it's not just about moving a specific object, but also placing an object within the vicinity of another unknown object.
I just had a chance to watch the video and think it’s coming together pretty nicely! I wonder if more different sound effects would help. I like the size of the level - I don’t think something like this could work as well in a giant room.
For an intro/tutorial, I think the first 1-2 minutes of the video would provide a pretty good outline for the player, especially if it’s text on the screen. Have them move a couple of things in sequence and then they know the gameplay.
“Also, long-sleepers were more likely to report symptoms of depression,”
Couldn't that also be interpreted as "People with depression are more likely to report long sleep durations?"
Link to game if anyone is interested: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2250550/Tornado_Research_...
reply