Difference between revisions of "Talk:R-A-E-D Iterations"
ValterAlves (Talk | contribs) m |
ValterAlves (Talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?== | == Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?== | ||
| − | The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts | + | The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br /> |
The four involved concepts make sense alone -- they can be (and sometimes are) explored in isolation -- and have specific goals and solutions. So, we argue that it would not make sense to treat them all together in one single pattern/card.<br /> | The four involved concepts make sense alone -- they can be (and sometimes are) explored in isolation -- and have specific goals and solutions. So, we argue that it would not make sense to treat them all together in one single pattern/card.<br /> | ||
But the iterated sequence (...→Relaxation→Anticipation→Engagement→Decay→Relaxation→Anticipation→Engagement→Decay&rarrRelaxation→... or in the simpler and most common case ...→Relaxation→Engagement→Decay→Relaxation→Engagement→Decay&rarrRelaxation→...) also makes sense because it is one relevant and particular exploration of such concepts.<br /> | But the iterated sequence (...→Relaxation→Anticipation→Engagement→Decay→Relaxation→Anticipation→Engagement→Decay&rarrRelaxation→... or in the simpler and most common case ...→Relaxation→Engagement→Decay→Relaxation→Engagement→Decay&rarrRelaxation→...) also makes sense because it is one relevant and particular exploration of such concepts.<br /> | ||
Revision as of 15:36, 13 August 2011
Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?
The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake (Relaxation, Anticipation, Engagement, Decay) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.
The four involved concepts make sense alone -- they can be (and sometimes are) explored in isolation -- and have specific goals and solutions. So, we argue that it would not make sense to treat them all together in one single pattern/card.
But the iterated sequence (...→Relaxation→Anticipation→Engagement→Decay→Relaxation→Anticipation→Engagement→Decay&rarrRelaxation→... or in the simpler and most common case ...→Relaxation→Engagement→Decay→Relaxation→Engagement→Decay&rarrRelaxation→...) also makes sense because it is one relevant and particular exploration of such concepts.
Still, we recognize that the users of the deck may sense some repetition (or revisiting at least) of the concepts.
So, the question is, considering that we have to compromise, should this pattern continue to be a card in version 2.0, or should we deprecate it as of version 1.0?
ValterAlves 16:34, 13 August 2011 (WEST)
