Refactoring for TDD and interaction design

In TDD, we follow a rhythm of “test-code-refactor.” This basic pattern is useful in all aspects of product development. The basic idea is to avoid building something based on what you think it might need to do in the future. Instead, we build for today, but then constantly look for ways to reconfigure what we’ve created to make it more general, more flexible, more useful. This process is called refactoring. In code, it helps us to build reusable components that are suitable for assembly into complex systems without having to guess which components are needed (or how they should work). In effect, the specific examples drive the spec for what the general pieces should look like.

The same process works in Interaction Design. The temptation is try and build a toolkit of general pieces, which can be assembled into many kinds of final product. This rarely works, because it is hard to build pieces that work optimally for diverse uses without damaging each use case (which leads to mediocre or compromised results). Much better is to infer the right toolkit by searching for commonalities among actually-built experiences.

Paul Graham on fundraising

I have found no better primer on the current realities of starting a new technology company in a startup hub like Silicon Valley than Paul Graham's essays. Alas, they aren't published in a dead-tree medium yet, so I can't say something like "they are the essential reference on my bookcase..." but rest assured they would be.

A Fundraising Survival Guide
http://www.paulgraham.com/fundraising.html

Raising money has a mysterious capacity to suck up all your attention. Even if you only have one meeting a day with investors, somehow that one meeting will burn up your whole day. It costs not just the time of the actual meeting, but the time getting there and back, and the time preparing for it beforehand and thinking about it afterward.

What I tell most startups we fund is that if someone reputable offers you funding on reasonable terms, take it. There have been startups that ignored this advice and got away with it—startups that ignored a good offer in the hope of getting a better one, and actually did. But in the same position I'd give the same advice again. Who knows how many bullets were in the gun they were playing Russian roulette with?

The Hacker's Guide to Investors
http://www.paulgraham.com/guidetoinvestors.html

Whatever help investors give a startup tends to be underestimated. It's to everyone's advantage to let the world think the founders thought of everything. The goal of the investors is for the company to become valuable, and the company seems more valuable if it seems like all the good ideas came from within.

I say this as a founder: the contribution of founders is always overestimated. The danger here is that new founders, looking at existing founders, will think that they're supermen that one couldn't possibly equal oneself. Actually they have a hundred different types of support people just offscreen making the whole show possible.

How to Fund a Startup
http://www.paulgraham.com/startupfunding.html

It's obvious why investors delay. Investing in startups is risky! When a company is only two months old, every day you wait gives you 1.7% more data about their trajectory. But the investor is already being compensated for that risk in the low price of the stock, so it is unfair to delay.

Fair or not, investors do it if you let them. Even VCs do it. And funding delays are a big distraction for founders, who ought to be working on their company, not worrying about investors. What's a startup to do? With both investors and acquirers, the only leverage you have is competition. If an investor knows you have other investors lined up, he'll be a lot more eager to close-- and not just because he'll worry about losing the deal, but because if other investors are interested, you must be worth investing in. It's the same with acquisitions. No one wants to buy you till someone else wants to buy you, and then everyone wants to buy you.

The key to closing deals is never to stop pursuing alternatives. When an investor says he wants to invest in you, or an acquirer says they want to buy you, don't believe it till you get the check. Your natural tendency when an investor says yes will be to relax and go back to writing code. Alas, you can't; you have to keep looking for more investors, if only to get this one to act.