Striving for Consistency
On Monday, a spirited debate unfolded within our team. The cause of this intellectual tussle? A choice between rigid consistency and flexible individuality, presented through a vivid metaphor: the naming of two main streets in a bustling city.
Imagine a city with two contrasting streets: Street A leads to a lively market filled with people:
Street B heads to a highly automated industrial zone:
Street A is named with whimsy, resonating with human emotions. Street B follows a systematic pattern, optimised for robotic navigation.
The question arose: Should the naming conventions be consistent, or tailored to their unique environments?
The dilemma mirrored our own: Should we strive for rigid consistency or allow flexibility in our naming structures? Are we building for machines, for humans, or for both?
The debate was passionate, reflecting the complexity of the question. Some advocated for uniformity, emphasising efficiency and security. Others leaned towards flexibility, highlighting the importance of human connection and empathy.
Should we prioritise efficiency for machines, disregarding the connection with humans?
Should we build a rigid or flexible naming structure?
Is there a way to strike a balance that serves both?
From one team member’s perspective, consistency was paramount. Security is our highest priority, and sometimes that means making trade-offs between flexible, human-readable words and text written for machines.
The question of naming isn’t just about syntax; it’s about how we connect with our technology. Through the metaphor of city streets, we explored the tension between consistency, rigidity, and human-machine interaction.
In our case, understanding the underlying principles helped us reach a compromise that honoured both the need for security and the desire for human connection. Our team recognised that consistency matters, but not at the cost of usability or empathy.
Our story is a reminder that sometimes, the smallest details can spark the most profound conversations. Whether in naming conventions or broader technology decisions, it’s essential to consider both the machine’s efficiency and the human’s experience.