I just encountered something so delightful that I wanted to share it. As I thought about who else would enjoy this, I realized that it may just me. I decided to share it here on the blog in hopes that I forget it, search for it, and find it again later. (It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.)
I guide students through a lot of user story analysis, including but not limited to games-related courses. Years ago, I noticed a tendency for them to write a user story statement like, "I want Mario to be able to jump." I am pretty sure I also used to write them this way, too. At some point, it dawned on me that players don't want Mario to be able to jump: players want Mario to jump. Once I realized that, I saw the strangely passive "to be able to" in practically all of my students' stories. I've been on the lookout for this structure ever since, finding it akin to passive voice in prose: best to be eliminated.
This morning, I found myself reading a part of the Summa Theologiae as part of research into classical definitions of vice and virtue. In it, Aquinas tackles the question of whether a vice is worse than a vicious act. His response, in Sum I-II, 71, iii, co., includes the following.
For it is better to do well than to be able to do well, and in like manner, it is more blameworthy to do evil than to be able to do evil.
There you have it: a classical argument against the passive "to be able to" in user stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment