[msvalkon]

You could use this same argument to argue against testing software. If one of the people who "gets it" has written this piece of software then there should be no reason to test it because they _know_ it works. Anyone coming in for a job interview at a professional company with this attitude will not be taken seriously.

"They" are human and are prone to the exact same errors and mistakes as anyone else. Google is technologically successful because they try to base their decision on analyzed data instead of a gut feeling.

[TeMPOraL]

And yet Android UI is mediocre and isn't a qualitative improvement on the previous status quo.

I think the point of GP is that listening to the 'someone who "gets it"' can speed up the development process. Indecision has costs, and you can run studies in parallel anyway. Sometimes costs of having to backtrack every now and then are outweighted by the benefits of moving fast.

RE arguments against testing in code - testing is cool and all, but at some point you have to ask yourself whether you want to ship a product or a test suite.

BTW. the whole anecdote reminds me of a story from Microsoft about problems coming from a group of PhDs:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/TwoStories.html

[DonHopkins]

"Getting it" can also mean having already tried something before, or having tried enough things that are similar that you can triangulate on what something would actually be like.

I'm all for testing and empirical studies, but it can be taken too far. Zynga focuses so much on measuring and testing, that it sucks all the fun and personality out of their game designs.

[xorcist]

Empirical data tends to find local maximas. You need someone with a vision how it all fits together and which guiding principles to embrace.