Excellent advise. From years of design: FORM follows FUNCTION (not the other way aroundI would hold off naming it until the content were ironed out somewhat, and then make the title fit the content.
In which case name it first. The name tells everyone what function you intend it to serve, then you have to make sure you build it to actually serve that function.Excellent advise. From years of design: FORM follows FUNCTION (not the other way around).
That is exactly the opposite of what you want to do.In which case name it first. The name tells everyone what function you intend it to serve, then you have to make sure you build it to actually serve that function.
Yeah, but I've browsed the other thread, and frankly, if you tried to stuff even half of that into an expanded ruleset, it'd fall apart. If you at least start with a direction in mind, whether it's complexity or clarity or flexibility, you stand a chance of building it right.That is exactly the opposite of what you want to do.
Once you find out what people want, design it, then name it. If you name it first, you are pigeon-holing the design. In the other thread the OP already has been asking people what they would like to see, next the focus should be on making those mechanics, and then name it.
Now, of course have a "working title" for the project, but otherwise leave it alone. The focus should be on the function (i.e. the design) not the form (or the name of it).
Fair enough. I haven't read through the other thread enough to speak on that aspect.Yeah, but I've browsed the other thread, and frankly, if you tried to stuff even half of that into an expanded ruleset, it'd fall apart. If you at least start with a direction in mind, whether it's complexity or clarity or flexibility, you stand a chance of building it right.
Obviously you can’t just include everything anyone says they would want to see in such a book. But if there are common trends, certain things that keep coming up over and over again that a lot of people seem to want from such a product, that’s a much better starting point than the name.Yeah, but I've browsed the other thread, and frankly, if you tried to stuff even half of that into an expanded ruleset, it'd fall apart. If you at least start with a direction in mind, whether it's complexity or clarity or flexibility, you stand a chance of building it right.