This is Signal vs. Noise, a weblog by 37signals about design, business, experience, simplicity, the web, culture, and more. Established 1999 in Chicago. Follow us on Twitter for more information on our products.

really enjoy this. a thought provoking way to think about iterative design.

@AC. It’s missing a bit of context right?

—For those who already understand. TL;DR

Say, you’re working on the design for something like “High Rise Contacts”, you’ve got an idea on loves and hates. Where do you go next?

Kent’s Perspective: First, define scope the what you’re doing by asking yourself “how much do i need to do learn the next lesson? how little can i possibly do?” Another words, each iterative design is a learning experience. Just do enough, so that you can test if the concept.

I think the “approach” is thought provoking like horoscopes. It is beautifully vague and allows every reader to bring their own experience to it and fill in a LOT of blanks. It’s not an approach so much as something you might find inside of a fortune cookie.

I’ve seen many, many illogical outcomes that were arrived at one logical step at a time.

@Mike – I think the idea of redefining the problem from ‘what do we need to build’ to ‘what do we need to learn’ is more concrete that you give it credit for. Since an large part of an iterative approach is about learning constraints and requirements anyway, this redefinition that is being communicated has some merit.

Not everything written by Kent Beck is worth quoting.

There’s a danger of reinventing wheels in his approach. NIH syndrome applied to one’s own brain and/or tasklist.

Err, OK? I think.