|
Just like every issue tracker. The distinction is nonsensical to me. They are all item trackers. You define what the items mean to you; not the other way around. I've used everything from post-its, spread sheets, text files, jira, and all the rest. It doesn't matter what you use; just how you use it. What I value is low friction usage. It's why I hate Jira because all the key operations involve modal pop ups and a generally high level of friction, lots of waiting for stupidly slow APIs, etc. Sucks all the momentum out of any meeting where you want to focus on content rather than stupid tools. What I explain in 3 seconds shouldn't require 3 minutes to mirror in the tool. It's what I love about Asana. Because it's just type, enter, type, etc. to create issues. Multi select with the arrow keys or control clicking, and boom labels, assignees, etc. added. That's low friction. GH issues strikes a good balance. Create a ticket, add some checkbox list, convert individual list items to issues by clicking them. Nice. Could be better but it works. I have zero experience with Kitemaker, so I'm not going to criticize it. But to me it looks like just another tool. What's so great about it? The article just descends into a nonsensical and completely artificial distinction between issues and goals. Why not do both? Why have two tools? Sounds like friction to me. Or impedance mismatch. |