Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
You Don’t Have To Leave Wolfy Behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' Your Companions Level Up With You!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is Quality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8647864" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Why would one not, as you have suggested below, define things such that these differences are categorized out? This seems a weakness of your overall proposal: either you have your categorization that excludes comparisons you don't want, but which seems to exclude <em>other</em> comparisons you <em>do</em> want, or you don't, and thus comparisons I'm making are appropriate.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Turn that around: it is not about what the user is trying to accomplish, but what ends the <em>designer</em> is trying to <em>support</em>. Yes, end-users will bring whatever ends they wish to use the product for. The designer of something is, however, trying to make a product that <em>will</em> provide one or more ends for which users may desire said product. That's where focus vs diversity is a design consideration, and thus, something that factors into quality.</p><p></p><p>I mean, you've already granted, as I understood it, that the product must be made <em>for some kind of purpose</em>. This is a question of intrinsic quality factors in terms of "did the creator actually have the effort and resources to <em>fulfill</em> all the purposes they set out to meet?"</p><p></p><p></p><p>And I would argue that such categorization is <em>you</em> inserting arbitrary divisions that make comparison impossible. We could always object and demand finer and finer comparison until nothing could be compared because no other products could possibly match. "Oh well it has to be a <em>burger</em> fast food joint; you couldn't compare Taco Bell and McDonald's. But it also can't be focused on the <em>dining experience</em>, because McDonald's is clearly catering to the take-out crowd; you wouldn't compare it with Applebee's or Red Robin. Oh and don't forget that it needs to be specifically a <em>very cheap</em> fast-food takeout-focused burger joint, because McDonald's isn't trying to compete with something like Chili's or the like, that whole 'six-dollar burger' thing at Carl's Jr./Hardee's is definitely not the same," etc., etc. This ever-finer categorization results in the inverse of the apples-and-oranges problem; we start needing to compare Granny Smith apples from Washington state harvested in the early part of the season (e.g. October) but kept in good preservation conditions until early winter (e.g. Christmas), otherwise it's not a <em>fair</em> comparison.</p><p></p><p>Suitability, as a category, is specifically what <em>enables</em> related but still cross-category comparisons in a useful way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8647864, member: 6790260"] Why would one not, as you have suggested below, define things such that these differences are categorized out? This seems a weakness of your overall proposal: either you have your categorization that excludes comparisons you don't want, but which seems to exclude [I]other[/I] comparisons you [I]do[/I] want, or you don't, and thus comparisons I'm making are appropriate. Turn that around: it is not about what the user is trying to accomplish, but what ends the [I]designer[/I] is trying to [I]support[/I]. Yes, end-users will bring whatever ends they wish to use the product for. The designer of something is, however, trying to make a product that [I]will[/I] provide one or more ends for which users may desire said product. That's where focus vs diversity is a design consideration, and thus, something that factors into quality. I mean, you've already granted, as I understood it, that the product must be made [I]for some kind of purpose[/I]. This is a question of intrinsic quality factors in terms of "did the creator actually have the effort and resources to [I]fulfill[/I] all the purposes they set out to meet?" And I would argue that such categorization is [I]you[/I] inserting arbitrary divisions that make comparison impossible. We could always object and demand finer and finer comparison until nothing could be compared because no other products could possibly match. "Oh well it has to be a [I]burger[/I] fast food joint; you couldn't compare Taco Bell and McDonald's. But it also can't be focused on the [I]dining experience[/I], because McDonald's is clearly catering to the take-out crowd; you wouldn't compare it with Applebee's or Red Robin. Oh and don't forget that it needs to be specifically a [I]very cheap[/I] fast-food takeout-focused burger joint, because McDonald's isn't trying to compete with something like Chili's or the like, that whole 'six-dollar burger' thing at Carl's Jr./Hardee's is definitely not the same," etc., etc. This ever-finer categorization results in the inverse of the apples-and-oranges problem; we start needing to compare Granny Smith apples from Washington state harvested in the early part of the season (e.g. October) but kept in good preservation conditions until early winter (e.g. Christmas), otherwise it's not a [I]fair[/I] comparison. Suitability, as a category, is specifically what [I]enables[/I] related but still cross-category comparisons in a useful way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is Quality?
Top