jamiepinkham.com

jeffrock:

Buzz Anderson in response to Andre Torrez:

Finishing a significant consumer software application is essentially a process of nailing down a profusion of tiny details like the ones Torrez calls out here. It can seem like death by a thousand paper cuts, and it becomes even more painful when you realize that you can’t market based on polish, and no user will laud you for making sure a button is properly disabled, an icon is perfectly aligned, or a design is properly thought out. One of the hardest things about shipping Birdfeed was staying committed to slaving away on such minutae while other, often less polished, clients beat me to market.

While such attention to detail may not be appreciated in the specific case, however, I’ve found that in aggregate it leads to an overall impression of quality that attracts the kind of fanatically devoted users who form the backbone of a growing, long term user base. Shipping quality is a longer, tougher road than just shipping whatever to be first to market, and its benefits tend to be realized more slowly, but if you want users to love your software as a brand, and not merely use it as a commodity, it’s the only way.

Quality software design is a paradox. You’ll know you’ve done it right when no one knows what you’ve done. I find that when writing a quality application you’ll spend 1/3 of your time writing features and 2/3 of your time polishing them.

Jeff and I have a Basecamp project that speaks directly to those proportions.