Beispiel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3no7CXVl24A ---
Präsentation auf einem virtuellen, unendlich großen Blatt Papier, auf dem man sich durch Maussteuerung bewegen sowie hinein- und heraus zoomen kann
A design persona has nine parts; Products are people, too. | 10 Steps to Personas: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/18/ef/dc/18efdc3bc2bd4a563d8ddbe6548194dc.jpg
Offener, von Kindern und Erziehern überall einsehbarer Rundbau, der Kindern Bewegung & Findability innerhalb der durchgängigen, wandlosen Räume ermöglicht (statt geschlossener Raum an Raum). Bewegung auch auf dem Dach.
Common mistake in arch: Using functionality to id services ("Buying Stocks", "Selling Stocks", ...). Functional decomposition maximizes impact of change, is coupled to it. Better encapsulate change to insulate. Do not resonate with change. |
The conclusion is that you should never design against the requirements (or the features, or the use cases, or the user stories). What you must do instead is identify the smallest set of building blocks, call them microservices if you like, that you can put together to satisfy ANY requirement: present and future, known and unknown. There is a strong process angle of how you go about doing just that.
Identify areas of volatilities, and those you encapsulate in (micro)services. Then you implement the required behavior as the interaction between those services. A new requirement would simply mean a different services interaction, not a different decomposition, so now when the requirements change, your design does not.
https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/07/lowy-every-class-service?utm_campaign=infoq_content&utm_source=infoq&utm_medium=feed&utm_term=global
![Inhaltsverzeichnis direkt aufs Buchcover [Image]](https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/5162729415593.560ce232735b3.JPG){kind=link}
