Replies: 1 comment
-
@prototyperspective for the sake of keeping our discussion in a narrower scope, I'm continuing discussion from #537 (comment) here.
Gotcha, in that case I'd agree that the problem wouldn't be a problem anymore, and the Topic wouldn't need further discussion.
I was intentionally trying to contrast "Problem is missing Detriments" with "Detriment is missing Detriments" - where (assuming there's disagreement about whether or not the thing is a concern) the former means the author needs to think about it and add Detriments, or the Topic may not be worth discussing at all. The latter means that the Detriment, without children Detriments to justify it as a negative outcome, may be better represented as an Effect, or deleted altogether.
I appreciate the simplified/consistency of thinking, but I think it comes at the cost of all Detriments appearing as core-ish Problems, reducing focus on what is intended as one or a small number of core Problems. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Right now, Detriments of a Problem are intended to convey why the Problem is concerning, and subproblems are intended to identify other problems that are concerning, independently of the root Problem but still relevant within the Topic. But perhaps the additional possible clarity provided by the Detriment type is not worth the cost of having to mentally process another node type and its meaning.
This discussion is started based on the thread around this comment #537 (comment).
TODO: create an Ameliorate diagram summarizing the tradeoffs discussed in the above thread.
Here is an example with left: current intended strategy using Detriments, right: possible strategy using only subproblem:
Here is an example (from brutality-sugar-article) with top: current intended strategy with subproblems, bottom: possible strategy using only subproblem:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions