In today’s meeting, we discussed cases where it makes sense to do quick iterative changes to the website. So, I’m posting this just to get wider consensus on the topic.
For example: The landing page should link more prominently to /p/snowdrift:
In that case, fix is trivial: put back a “Projects” link in the nav bar. That needs no costly full design and mock-up process and is also trivial to remove or update later.
So for that case, here’s the merge-request
While this is going to vary case-by-case, it seems there are times like this where we should just do the work and then give some time for design folks to review a MR in case there are concerns. There may be other times where it’s worth getting design approval before doing any work.
Also, I assume it’s fine enough to update simple things like links and text in pages that are awaiting overhaul (such as the current /p/snowdrift page).
Obviously, major new or overhauled designs need the full User Story / mockup etc. process.
Any further thoughts / concerns / suggestions about how to make iterative work like this more common and smooth with minimal bureaucracy?
I agree that the scale of changes should match the scale of planning. My only concern is that whatever is being done should be discussed with one other (senior?) team member at least informally, and whatever is done is posted to the git so that people can maintain awareness.
I don’t mind taking shortcuts if it is sensible. But then again I don’t feel connected to any productive progress currently anyway. Any progress is better then none I guess.
I suggest that the code-review policy should still apply, and I’ll extend it to say that design-impacting changes should be reviewed by a designer before merging.
For the record, this was my idea, so the standard boilerplate nonsense “all positive aspects are due to the work of others, and all mistakes are my own” applies.
This seems, to me, more than just a tangent. Productive progress creates a positive feedback loop. The more we enable (and actually get) small contributions from volunteers, the more engaged everyone is. Some of those folks will become volunteers who help with more substantial tasks.
I don’t follow what you are about to point out here. What does that have to do with my reply?
Your situation may be unique to you, but lots of people have trouble feeling connected when there’s not regular activity. Or we feel difficulty connecting when each issue feels like a major project. Everything that makes it easier to have small ways to connect or to see progress helps in general to keep us connected. I can’t speak for you in whether that really applies to your case necessarily.