4 comments

  • Mason LawlorMason Lawlor, 4 years ago (edited 4 years ago )

    I really love the concept of PR too. The first thing I thought was that it would be too hard to implement, but it actually looks pretty easy. I'm guessing the reason LV ditched it was because it's hard to measure its ROI on the time and resources that go into maintaining it. You basically have to poll customers to find out if they like it, and the whole point of it is subtlety, so if it's done right, most customers wouldn't even notice it exists.

    I think the problem is that it's not practical for 99% of companies because it's such a subtle luxury. I agree though, I'd love to see it more.

    1 point
  • Daniel FoscoDaniel Fosco, 4 years ago

    As much as I like the idea of progressive reduction myself, it's worth noting that LayerVault themselves have abandoned this idea.

    Not saying it can't work, but most articles about it (this one included) seem to be rather theoretical.

    0 points
    • Dan BirmanDan Birman, 4 years ago

      You make a good point. Layervault did abandon their Progressive Reduction approach due to customer feedback, but they also said that they "still think it can be extremely useful."

      In order for Progressive Reduction to work effectively, it needs to be built within a framework from the outset. This minimizes the amount of maintenance required and makes it easy to implement changes in response to customer feedback.

      So, I think that Progressive Reduction can work really well, it just has to be set up in the right environment. With that being said, I agree with you that there aren't many good examples of it out in the wild, which is a shame really. I'd love to see it being used more widely.

      1 point
      • Daniel FoscoDaniel Fosco, 4 years ago (edited 4 years ago )

        Agreed on all points, would love to see it happening in the wild as well.

        0 points