It’s ironic, isn’t it? Design is more important and respected than ever, which means we have more agency to affect change. But at the same time, our priorities have been subverted, pushed towards corporate benefit over human benefit. It’s hard to reconcile those things.
I really like this exercise by Harry. I’ve done similar kinds of grading using dot-voting in the past. It feels like an early step to establishing design principles: “this over that.”
By deciding what we value up-front, we have an agreement that we can look back on in order to help us settle these conflicts and get us back on track again.
Relative Requirements remove the personal aspect of these disagreements and instead focuses on more objective agreements that we made as a team.
Two sides of a debate on progressive enhancement…
Andrey “Rarst” Savchenko wrote Progressive enhancement — JS sites that work:
Joe Hoyle disagrees:
Caspar acknowledges this:
I don’t have any problem buying into pragmatism as the main and often pressing reason for not investing into a no-JS fallback. The idealistic nature of a design directive like progressive enhancement is very clear to me, and so are typical restrictions in client projects (budgets, deadlines, processes of decision making).
But concludes that by itself that’s not enough reason to ditch such a fundamental technique for building a universal, accessible web:
Ain’t nobody got time for progressive enhancement always, maybe. But entirely ditching principle as a compass for resilient decision making won’t do.
It will come as no surprise that I agree with every single word that Tim has written here.
Thoughtful points from Chris, delivered on the closing day of this year’s Brooklyn Beta.
So, the next time you feel like you’re missing out, stop it. Zoom out a little bit and give yourself some space and some perspective, so you can focus on what matters.