It seems to me like there are meaningful differences between these words: viable, lovable and appropriately gray.
It seems that way, but I haven’t found it to be the case in actual product discussions. The details and unknowns overwhelm the semantic and general differences.
I’m having a little bit of trouble understanding what you mean by this.
The way I see it (roughly) is that you can have a line somewhere that says “at this point the product becomes viable”, and you can have another line that says “at this point the product becomes lovable”. One thing you can argue about is where those lines belong. What exactly does it mean for a product to be viable? To be lovable?
A second thing you can argue about is which of those lines you should target (for a hypothesis test release).
A third thing you can argue about is where a current iteration of the product lies. Eg. with features A, B and C, where would you place the product along this spectrum? What if we added feature D? How far to the right does feature D move us? What about feature E?
With that stuff said, perhaps you are saying that people more or less agree on the first and second things, so there isn’t that much to discuss there, but there are substantial disagreements on the third thing, and thus most of the conversation is spent on this third thing. Is that what you mean?
I’m guessing the point is that the difficulty of the third thing makes paying attention to the finer distinctions within the first two things less useful.
It seems that way, but I haven’t found it to be the case in actual product discussions. The details and unknowns overwhelm the semantic and general differences.
I’m having a little bit of trouble understanding what you mean by this.
The way I see it (roughly) is that you can have a line somewhere that says “at this point the product becomes viable”, and you can have another line that says “at this point the product becomes lovable”. One thing you can argue about is where those lines belong. What exactly does it mean for a product to be viable? To be lovable?
A second thing you can argue about is which of those lines you should target (for a hypothesis test release).
A third thing you can argue about is where a current iteration of the product lies. Eg. with features A, B and C, where would you place the product along this spectrum? What if we added feature D? How far to the right does feature D move us? What about feature E?
With that stuff said, perhaps you are saying that people more or less agree on the first and second things, so there isn’t that much to discuss there, but there are substantial disagreements on the third thing, and thus most of the conversation is spent on this third thing. Is that what you mean?
I’m guessing the point is that the difficulty of the third thing makes paying attention to the finer distinctions within the first two things less useful.