←back to thread

Huly – Open-source project management platform

(github.com)
466 points blacktechnology | 1 comments | 14 Oct 24 03:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
whyowhy3484939 ◴[14 Oct 24 09:23 UTC] No.41835772[source]▶
Project management strikes me as one of those fuzzy complicated looking problems that, for some reason, are always approached as a single problem that needs one UI. In my mind it is not a single problem.

I'd try a more modular approach because IMO a substantial part of the problem is "horses for courses": PMs and developers have very different skills and requirements. Even inside those categories there is substantial variation.

I see no reason why the UI for developers has to be same as for PMs and higher ups. My ideal PM solution would involve the CLI and the notion of committing changes and being able to organize information cleverly. Efficiency, bare-boned, no fluff, no pixels that add zero information. These would all be things I am interested in.

My boss' ideal PM solution would probably involve some unholy marriage of Salesforce, Excel and CSVs without any organization whatsoever in a screen that explodes with fireworks and deliberately slows everything down and adds lag and loading screens so you feel you are doing important work. You can tell I am jaded, but my point is, fine. Let them have it. I see no reason to approach this problem with one, fixed, set of interaction patterns.

It's a common theme these days for me. Why does everything has to be so monolithic? Why is everything so samey?

replies(2): >>41836381 #>>41837940 #
johannes1234321 ◴[14 Oct 24 11:10 UTC] No.41836381[source]▶
That's why everybody has their own Jira dashboards showing different information in different structure. Which then leads to people talking about different things.

There is some need of differentiation, but also need to make sure there is shared understanding on priorities and state.

replies(1): >>41847123 #
1. whyowhy3484939 ◴[15 Oct 24 10:37 UTC] No.41847123[source]▶
I appreciate the need for some semblance of uniformity, but surely we can read A Tale of Two Cities on both a Kindle and on paper without any substantial sacrifice in understanding. It is merely the appearance that I wish to differentiate, not the ontology.

In fact, thanks to your comment, I strengthened my conviction that the ontology needs to be foreground and center in all cases instead of the appearance(s), which receive substantial, and IMO excessive, attention.