"value":"\n <p>A key takeaway from Rob Allen's Domain-Driven Design talk was defining ubiquitous language and avoiding the phrase \"That's not what I meant\".<\/p>\n\n<p>Even a simple table or glossary that lists business and domain-specific terms and their agreed meaning is very helpful to ensure everyone in the discussion is on the same page and means the same thing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob's example was using the words \"policy\" and \"risk\" when dealing with insurance clients.<\/p>\n\n<p>A common issue I've seen is where people are referred to as customers by the business and users within the software.<\/p>\n\n<p>Ideally, these should be consistent, and the code should match the business terminology.<\/p>\n\n<p>This can be complicated further by different areas of the business, such as a marketing team that may refer to people as subscribers.<\/p>\n\n<p>Without the ubiquitous language being defined, the requirements are more likely to be misunderstood and the wrong solution delivered, resulting in \"that's not what I meant.\".<\/p>\n\n<p>This then means the work needs to be re-done and delayed, which can be expensive and time-consuming.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another approach is to work in small batches, which is something I've written about before, and getting feedback from customers as early and often as possible so, if there is a misunderstanding, the minimum amount of time has been spent before it's realised and rectified.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob, of course, covered a lot more about DDD in his talk, and I'm looking forward to re-watching it once the video from the meetup is released.<\/p>\n\n ",
"format":"full_html",
"processed":"\n <p>A key takeaway from Rob Allen's Domain-Driven Design talk was defining ubiquitous language and avoiding the phrase \"That's not what I meant\".<\/p>\n\n<p>Even a simple table or glossary that lists business and domain-specific terms and their agreed meaning is very helpful to ensure everyone in the discussion is on the same page and means the same thing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob's example was using the words \"policy\" and \"risk\" when dealing with insurance clients.<\/p>\n\n<p>A common issue I've seen is where people are referred to as customers by the business and users within the software.<\/p>\n\n<p>Ideally, these should be consistent, and the code should match the business terminology.<\/p>\n\n<p>This can be complicated further by different areas of the business, such as a marketing team that may refer to people as subscribers.<\/p>\n\n<p>Without the ubiquitous language being defined, the requirements are more likely to be misunderstood and the wrong solution delivered, resulting in \"that's not what I meant.\".<\/p>\n\n<p>This then means the work needs to be re-done and delayed, which can be expensive and time-consuming.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another approach is to work in small batches, which is something I've written about before, and getting feedback from customers as early and often as possible so, if there is a misunderstanding, the minimum amount of time has been spent before it's realised and rectified.<\/p>\n\n<p>Rob, of course, covered a lot more about DDD in his talk, and I'm looking forward to re-watching it once the video from the meetup is released.<\/p>\n\n ",