With my
TL hat on, we consciously pay a heavy tax over and above what you're accusing us of *specifically because we spend time soliciting and integrating the feedback some claim we're not asking for*.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
I could make my life, and the life of my team, much much easier if we did what you're accusing. But we don't. Our process is audaciously public and uncomfortably raw specifically to enable you to engage and collaborate should you care about the feature or space.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
Is there any other engine project that takes developer feedback from something like Origin Trials? That floats APIs *and then doesn't ship them* for lack of feedback or interest? That explicitly invokes the TAG or forces their team to work in public via incubation?
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Please can you publish the user research you've done on this? The user needs analysis would be really helpful in evaluating whether something is actually useful for end users.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @edent @RickByers and
On our general process for deciding to ship features? We tend to do UXR for specific features (not general processes), and (as you know) that tends to implicate PII unless meticulously scrubbed.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
the Origin Trials framework intends to publish what it can from the surveys we conduct, but require large enough sample sizes to be psudonemous. Not all trials reach that level.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
But again, those trials are specific to a particular proposed feature, rather than the overall process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
I'd also like to note the counterfactual: traditional working groups do not solicit or require feedback outside the set of people who are members of a particular SDO. This process is casting the nest wider and requesting more input than traditional standards development ever did
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
So I hear you on research; we're working to move the entire platform to a more evidence-based approach, and it's worth asking how the detractors of these tools would prefer things be structured instead. Is the alternative conference-room "consensus" from a preordained clique?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
1. Have a cool idea 2. Speak to real users and see if it meets a user need 3. Publish the (vague) user research and start discussing with peers 4. Design and iterate based on feedback 5. Test with users. Pass/Fail based on beta testing 6. Publish test results 7. Etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
You're looking for Origin Trials, which we are unique in running:https://github.com/GoogleChrome/OriginTrials …
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
Yep. You have to have something to trial with users in order to do user research, thus intent to implement!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @domenic @slightlylate and
I mean... No... That's not how user research works. The toast project has found what people are already using. But has done no research to seek the opinions of those users or devs.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.