> > if they are doing their implementation correctly, should be literally > a one-line change when the new screen is functional. > > The programmer is (a) being lazy, and (b) being stupid. It is > actually *more* work to make a single UI that has a read-only mode > than it is to make two UIs.
Yeahhh, this kind of approach probably won't win you many friends among your devs and product managers, who after all are your collaborators. Most people are not really lazy or stupid, and it's not productive to call them that or think of them that way. I'd suggest that unless you are *personally* able to verify it in the code, to never ever use the "should be a one-line code change" argument with developers. That's almost never really the case, and it really just comes across as a dismissal of someone else's work and efforts. You're in an awkward position, because from a developer or manager's point of view, disabling the input fields when not needed seems like an elegant and simple solution. It's something that everyone, even the non-programmers in the room, can pretty much understand, which makes it a very seductive approach. If you can make a case that your original design would save a substantial amount of money (i.e. more than the additional dev work required would cost), go for it. But: is there another good design solution that might be a compromise? Could you compromise the quality of the input/edit experience to insure the view cases are better covered? ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
