Gifts of knowledge to humanity There are many commonalities we can admire in these endeavors: the dazzling leap of imagination, the broad scope of applicability, the founding of a new paradigm. But let’s focus here on their form of distribution. These are all things that are taught. To “use” them means to learn them, understand them, internalize them, perform them with one’s own hands. They are free to any open mind. In Hamming’s world, great achievements are gifts of knowledge to humanity. Bret Victor, The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn knowledge
Hamming-greatness Hamming-greatness is tied, inseparably, with the conception of science and engineering as public service. This school of thought is not extinct today, but it is rare, and doing such work is not impossible, but fights a nearly overwhelming current. Bret Victor, The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn
Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction An Essay by Bret Victor worrydream.com The most powerful way to gain insight into a system is by moving between levels of abstraction. Many designers do this instinctively. But it's easy to get stuck on the ground, experiencing concrete systems with no higher-level view. It's also easy to get stuck in the clouds, working entirely with abstract equations or aggregate statistics. This interactive essay presents the ladder of abstraction, a technique for thinking explicitly about these levels, so a designer can move among them consciously and confidently. From a roving viewpoint abstractionunderstandinginteraction
The Ladder of Abstraction An Essay by Bret Victor worrydream.com Collaborative Information Architecture at Scale informationthinkingcommunicationabstraction
A Brief Rant An Essay by Bret Victor worrydream.com Like, just a post complaining that screens should be better designtechnologywwwinteractionbody
The Future of Programming A Talk by Bret Victor worrydream.com programmingcodetechnologyinteractionsoftware
Minimum Awesome Product An Article by Carlos Beneyto theuxblog.com Show image 0 Show image 1 Users are accustomed to a minimum of quality, and they expect that of all new products. If our product does not [meet basic expectations of quality], people will automatically believe that it is a bad product and they will not take it seriously. It is not what they expect. Hence my suggestion that the MVP has died and the MAP: Minimum Awesome Product was born. Understanding the Kano ModelDon't Serve Burnt PizzaWhat happens to user experience in a minimum viable product? qualityuxfeaturessoftware