-
…in reply to @d8en
d8en UXTweets I believe MVP is always dangerous territory. As a term it often confuses more than it helps. For myself it relates to making just enough to test a hypothesis and learn from it. So whether or not something needs to be lovable depends on what you’re trying to learn.Permalink On twitter.com
2019 Dec 5
Mood +3 🙂
-
…in reply to @axbom
d8en UXTweets So if there is no intent to learn and/or learning does not happen, there is no MVP. In my mind, ”viable” relates not to robustness but to the ability of learning enough. And it’s possible what you’re trying to learn is if ”lovable” is important for a specific product.Permalink On twitter.com
2019 Dec 5
Mood +2 🙂
-
…in reply to @axbom
d8en UXTweets I’m personally at odds with the definition of MVP that the article seems to put forward so I don’t feel like I’m helping. 🤨 The dating/marriage metaphor didn’t work for me either.Permalink On twitter.com
2019 Dec 5
Mood +4 🙂
-
…in reply to @axbom
d8en UXTweets To sum up, I think if we focus on co-creation and inclusion, we won’t need to assume what ”lovable” entails for someone else. Instead we’ll have a common focus on value-creation, which may or may not include someone’s definition of ”love”.On twitter.com
2019 Dec 5
Mood 0