Wednesday, April 8, 2015
I ask you this: does this sign mean the general entry is here, and that the handicap-accessible entry is to your right? Or does it mean the entry is to your right, and it is also handicap accessible?
My first thought was the former. Why? Having the wheelchair symbol and the arrow on the same line implies a stronger relationship than with the information above it. To most people, they don’t think about this directly, but they intuitively process the arrow and what it means.
I looked in my immediate vicinity and did not see any entries. I concluded the meaning must be the latter.
A better sign would have been:
Also, if the entry be handicap accessible, there be no need to call that fact out, as it isn’t special. You only need to know where the handicap-accessible entrance is if the main entrance isn’t so accessible. I submit the best sign therefore would be:
(Of course, the arrow should be centered and not have a blotchy background, but that’s just digital manipulation error. No, I am not going to spend the time to fix it!)
Bonus UX problem: this entry was on the southeast side of the building. Maybe it should have been called the Moscone Center West South East Entry For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too.
Or, maybe you just shouldn’t name buildings after ordinal directions.
Monday, April 6, 2015
In a recent article reexamining the Agile Manifesto, Derwyn Harris criticizes the fourth Agile value, which values responding to change over following a plan: “The volume of software being developed today dramatically outpaces that of 2001 and the Agile Manifesto doesn't address that reality. There is a notion in the Manifesto that we're trying to move away from planning, away from negotiation.”
The author only criticizes that we value responding to change more than following a plan. However, she is only criticizing a straw man. Valuing responding to change doesn't mean we avoid planning—a disclaimer right at the bottom of the manifesto itself clarifies this! Responsible Agile teams plan much, perhaps even more than in traditional software development. Agile planning needs to happen throughout product development and to accommodate the more important value of responding to change.
The Agile Manifesto “doesn’t address the reality” of how to plan for complex, fast-moving projects because it was never meant to address it. The Manifesto doesn’t try to give us “values” that we can apply to address every trend and movement of how software is made—it simply provides four values that historically have been secondary and makes them primary. You can—and often should—uphold other values that the manifesto didn’t anticipate.
If Harris means to criticize some naive "Agile" teams for failure to plan, then that is fair game. I would join him!
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Some teams want shorter sprints because they need more feedback, a quicker turnaround, and more interaction with the stakeholders.
If you are doing Scrum (or even just being Agile) well, you should be able to get lots of feedback during the sprint, regardless of your iteration length. If you feel that this isn't happening, yet you want to stay at longer intervals, consider setting up an informal demo with the Product Owner (PO) and a key stakeholder or user halfway through. This informal demo is flexible to happen more often, as much as you can benefit from it. Remember, official Scrum has the PO as part of the team all day every day. This is not commonly followed, so you have to intentionally look for ways to get that continuous, high-touch feedback from the PO.
On the other hand, some teams want shorter sprints in order to improve focus—to truly get done with half the work in half the time. This is the real benefit of one-week sprints; if successful, you can increase your output in that one week due to the benefits of increased focus.
Consider one-week sprints if you can possibly deliver genuine value in one week—providing the stakeholders with a potentially-releasable product. Otherwise, I'd keep it at two.
Some teams want this benefit of shorter sprints, but are wary of taking the plunge, thinking that the overhead of the Scrum rituals (estimation, sprint planning, daily scrums, and sprint review) is too high to do in one week.
I fear this is a straw-man, worry-wart argument. For a one-week sprint for a Scrum-experienced team, I'd hope to do the demo in one hour, the retro in a half-hour, then do estimation (which works best before sprint planning) and sprint planning in a few hours after that. I would combine these all in one day. The team may need to be involved in backlog grooming/story writing later in the sprint, but this shouldn't be the whole team, just individuals as needed.
This tighter approach is best done by remembering the goal of sprint planning is to agree on a sprint backlog that the team can begin working on immediately, and nothing more. In my experience, a good morning of sprint planning followed by a team lunch leaves the team extra-productive for the four hours remaining, wherein they get a lot done.
I think there is a different obstacle to shorter sprints that we don’t want to admit to ourselves. Too often teams feel two weeks is "easier" than one (And three weeks easier than two) not because it is actually easier, but because there is more time that can be wasted (or stolen by unplanned work) without being noticed. That's a "benefit" of a longer sprint you don't want. All the scrum rituals should take half as long in a one-week sprint as in a two-week sprint, so you should have exactly half the time to get done half the work--but hopefully, you will end up able to do a bit more than half the work in a sustainable, fast pace, right? "It’s not enough time" is a smell that the Sprint length is being abused and therefore wasted.
In the end, the team should decide 1-, 2-, or 3-week sprints based on how much they can plan with confidence and how much they can benefit from rapid feedback and delivery.