Hey guys!
I've been on this subreddit for quite a while now, commenting and enjoying the community discussion. However, there's one thing that I see commented frequently, and I never understand it: What's the difference between top-down and bottom-up design? What's the purpose of this?
Any help for me (and possibly many others) to understand this would be much appreciated. Cheers in advance.
EDIT: Thanks guys for opening up discussion and enlightening me on what it is. Cheers.
My bad in the delay and confusing question. Let me rephrase my question.
I have been thrown to work with our MFG. department that has a fair amount of reports from various sources (Excel, BI Tools, etc) Currently, they receive most of their reports via a schedule which the output ends up in their emails and on the flip side, they also run them manually when a certain process completes or when they want to know the current status on an item. Executives/Mgrs/Supervisors are also complaining they don't have the metrics they need in front of them in one location get an idea of what is going on and also want the mfg. floor to have dashboards on TVs in front of them to minimize the manual execution of reports and to increase transparency.
Question is, is it better to work with the Executives/Mgrs, etc. to understand what their needs are, do some data profiling, build out the KPIs they require, break down the metrics as granular as they go, and place the various granular metrics on various dashboards. What I mean, as you break down the KPIs, the different levels of metrics may apply to different levels of users as one KPI may be made up of various smaller reports and then those reports can be made up of other reports. Typically the lower level you go, the lower down the totem pole the metrics would apply too. Typically, upper management is interested in trending data whereas the floor staff is interested in operational data. Once all Executives/Mgrs, have the metrics they require, work down the chain to fill the gaps of missing required metrics. OR Vice-versa, what I meant from Bottom-up, work with the end-users and the various MFG processes to build out their requirements and continue to roll them up to where they would apply to users up the chain. Then end by finishing the gaps with upper management.
Hope that helps.
I'm no sure if those titles are the correct terms, but hopefully its close enough to get an answer. I am curious about this from a set design perspective as well as from a deck building prospective
I've heard these terms a lot, but not always with the same definitions. My current understanding is "bottom-up" is starting with fun ideas and trying to make a game out of them, whereas "top-down" is starting more from cold, hard reality (like market research) and then building something that will fit.
Is this correct? Do you guys have different definitions of these?
Hello, looking to gather any wisdom from the community.
I hate bottom-up sweater construction. I can't try it on as I go and it makes it utterly frustrating when something goes wrong and the length is too long or too short. I'm 200% all for top-down sweaters.
However, there are so many GORGEOUS bottom-up patterns, particularly for Nordic (fair isle style) doing yoke sweaters. I've been doing enough chart knitting for a while, that I got the idea in my head, what if I knit a top-down sweater, doing the INVERSE of the pattern recommendations? Ie. Increase where the pattern decreases, split where the say to join, etc.
Anyone every tried this? Any tips and tricks? The biggest thing to my mind would be to find/use the most hole-less increase stitch (ie never yarn-over, maybe K1FB?)
Thanks in advance!
Edit: bottom-up design means thinking of mechanics first and thematics second.
I wanna preface this by saying that I don't intend to bash Khora or recent content, I just want to make some observations that I had. It's less about criticizing last week's update and more about trying to improve the design philosophy as a whole. I love this game and I just want it to be better.
DE often seems to design warframes by valuing form over function.
Khora is actually not the best example of this, since she was tied with the new IPS mechanics, but they felt she had to be changed for some reason. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that her abilities would've been more interesting with the IPS mode switch that was originally intended.
Even then, it seems like they thought of the theme before the mechanics in the panicked rework before her release.
Ex: "Ok we want her to be cat-themed, with whips and chains, that whole aesthetic."
Then for the mechanics, it kinda feels like DE took a shot in the dark with regards to what the community would appreciate, with what seems like very little playtesting to see what actually feels good to use, beyond just the theme of it. For example, though these things are going to change, whipclaw feels clunky, ensnare feels inconsistent, the cat is sadly worthless and strangledome is old zephyr's tornadoes all over again. She brings nothing new to the table and feels like a mish-mash of worsened abilities from other frames (Gara's 1, Nidus's 2, a cat, and a strictly worse bastille without an enemy limit).
There are some other examples of top-down design gone wrong here and there. Mirage's sleight of hand is a cool and interesting idea in theory, but still no one uses it. It's thematically fine, with her being a trickster and whatnot, but no one wants to wait for enemies to go to objects, that's just not how warframe works.
Titania's lantern and tribute abilities were intended to do cool things and help the team, but they're at best worthless and at worst detrimental. It's obvious that very little playtesting went into them.
Nezha and Wukong are pretty obvious examples. They have a strong footing in Chinese mythology, and so were designed to thematically appeal to that crowd instead of being made to play well and flow well.
Then there's the list of passives that fit thematically, but are never relevant in actual play. Earlier, someone made a thread about Rhino's passive. That's one of them: rhino is heavy, so it m
... keep reading on reddit ➡
We just moved into a new place and want to convert the Roman shades in the front windows to go from the bottom to the top. That way we can let light in and have some privacy. It should be super easy - just unscrew the shades from the top of the window sill and screw them into the bottom. I think I just need some more cord and some kind of locking pulley for the top. But I can’t seem to find anything on how to do it or what specifically I need. How can I do this? Thanks!
After a whole home window replacement we are soon to need new shades. After seeing top down bottom up shades in a showroom, we would like to go this route. I’m here hoping to gain some knowledge on, pros and cons, best brands, and success and/or horror stories regarding cellular honeycomb top-down bottom-up shades. Thanks in advance. Cheers
Anyone know of a brand? I believe Hunter Douglas makes a set (and they work with Homekit which is ideally what I want) but HD is $$$ and unfortunately I need like 8 large blinds.
Top-Down worlds are designed flavor first. For example, Theros was envisioned as a Greek myth world first and then given mechanics. Bottom-Up worlds are designed mechanics first. For example, Mirrodin was envisioned as an artifact-themed plane and then given flavor. This is my attempt at a definite list separating each major plane into these two categories.
First, planes we have confirmation on.
Top-Down:
Bottom-Up:
Dominaria is a mix. Sets like ABUR and Legends were top-down, while sets like Urza's Saga and Time Spiral were bottom-up.
The following are my best guesses:
Bottom-Up:
- Fiora
- Bablovia
- Kylem
When paired with the upcoming (hopefully) emote wheel, this would go such a long way with these players. Also, they (the emotes) would be easy to adapt to pretty much any situation.
Also applicable to situations when players can't talk or don't have mics!
My mouse wheel gets a hefty workout every time I'm in my stash. Figured we could speed things up with these hotkeys. Idk, just an idea.
Just trying to compile notes for revision, and these 2 things I struggle to differentiatez so any tips on how you remember the difference is much appreciated!
I am really trying hard to use memo.cash and trying hard to like it. Either I am doing something really wrong or I don't understand how I have been reading sites like reddit / hacker news / digg / twitter / facebook... All of these seem to post new things on TOP so when you read downward and onto the next post, you are naturally moving from newer posts to older posts.
I think memo.cash becomes more popular if it changes some of its design principles.
My previous post was about "centered" text which also is not ergonomic to read.
Someday we will talk about why memo's are all in a browser frame in the middle of the page - reminds me of old days of the 800px wide web pages.
The dashboard looks great
