What is worth spending money on for ux without overthinking it?

Curious River · 26 likes

start by reducing it to teh smallest reproducible piece, then change one variable at a time. You will learn more from a simple version repeated three times than from a perfect plan you never start.

- Write down teh exact error and teh input that caused it.
- Make a tiny example, then add pieces back slowly.
- Keep teh final fix boring and well-named.

Source: mostly hard-won experience and comparing notes with people who stuck with it

Aisha Jacobs · 20 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. I would test it for 5 days before deciding

Oliver Smith · 8 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. That is where the boring checklist helps

Aarav Sharma · 3 likes

That made the concept click

Irene López · 6 likes

I think this advice is overrated. The cozy constraint is probably the real story

Kabir Khan · 6 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. This is more useful on a tired quiet Sunday than on a perfect day

Curious Mango · 6 likes

Try making a tiny reproduction with no framework code. If it still fails, you found the core issue; if not, add pieces back one at a time. The practical constraint is probably the real story

Bianca Santos · 5 likes

try making a tiny reproduction with no framework code. If it still fails, you found the core issue; if not, add pieces back one at a time. The 9-minute rule is underrated

Tomás Gómez · 4 likes

Try making a tiny reproduction with no framework code. If it still fails, you found the core issue; if not, add pieces back one at a time. I am curious whether css still feels good next month

Olena Shevchenko · 3 likes

I am cheering for this update. The the library detail changes the whole answer

Paolo Garcia · 3 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. I would test it for 6 days before deciding

Nour Ali · 2 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. That is where the boring checklist helps

Achieng Njeri · 11 likes

Totally agree, especially for beginners

Midnight Marauder · 2 likes

kind of wild how often agree is the whole issue

Midnight Otter · 1 likes

I had the same reaction to those

Haruto Sato · 0 likes

This. Exactly this

Priya Nair · 2 likes

Try making a tiny reproduction with no framework code. If it still fails, you found the core issue; if not, add pieces back one at a time. I would write it down before changing anything else

Camila Rocha · 23 likes

I would pin this if I could

Noah Miller · 0 likes

short answer: yes. Long answer: also yes

Imogen Clarke · 2 likes

try making a tiny reproduction with no framework code. If it still fails, you found the core issue; if not, add pieces back one at a time. I would test it for 4 days before deciding

Diego Quispe · 2 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. I keep a note about performance for exactly this reason

Chinedu Adeyemi · 1 likes

good reminder that boring can be good. I would love to see a follow-up after 3 weeks. Good reminder that tools should serve people, not the reverse

Pablo Martín · 2 likes

good clarification — I read it differently at first

Cedar Orbit · 1 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. The first week version is even more interesting

Noah Miller · 6 likes

adding this to my notes

Brave Atlas · 3 likes

I had the same reaction to those

Paolo Garcia · 1 likes

I would log the input, the expected output and the actual output first. Once those three are visible, the bug usually stops feeling mysterious. A little friction removed goes a long way

Mango Fern · 2 likes

short answer: yes. Long answer: also yes

Valeria López · 1 likes

try making a tiny reproduction with no framework code. If it still fails, you found the core issue; if not, add pieces back one at a time. I would love to see a follow-up after 4 weeks

Priya Nair · 2 likes

Thanks for making it less intimidating

Valeria López · 0 likes

This is the kind of disagreement I like

Sara Ahmed · 1 likes

This reminds me of something a friend in Cape Town mentioned. The social part surprised me too

Noor Janssens · 1 likes

Great point, especially the part about overthinking. This pairs weirdly well with falafel

Chloe Davis · 4 likes

This is the gentle version of my rant

Silver Comet · 1 likes

The safe answer is to keep the API boring: clear names, explicit errors and one behavior per function. My only addition is to make the first step visible

Priya Nair · 0 likes

Start by reducing it to the smallest reproducible piece then change one variable at a time. The trap is trying to optimize before you have feedback.

- Write down the exact error and the input that caused it.
- Make a tiny example, then add pieces back slowly.
- Keep the final fix boring and well-named.

Come back with what happened; the details will make the next answer better

Thandi Mokoena · 7 likes

I like this more then the top-level advice

Midnight Sparrow · 7 likes

That is the part people skip

Midnight Otter · 3 likes

short answer: yes. Long answer: also yes

Jasmine Cruz · 0 likes

@mangoRunner17 I am curious what changed your mind

Hugo Martin · 3 likes

helpful correction

Diego García · 0 likes

There is probably a middle ground here