►
Description
Austin shares his ideas for how we can use a Merge Request as a central design artifact for solution validation and usability testing.
A
What
we're
talking
about
in
our
weekly
meeting
yesterday
about
so
how
do
we
handle,
like
those
really
small
changes,
there's
an
issue
that
was
given
to
me
a
while
back
just
like
hey,
let's
rename
push
rules,
we've
put
more
things
underneath
there
in
the
admin
area.
So
now
it's
not
just
push
rules,
it's
also
other
things
too.
So
then,
what
do
we
do
with
opportunities
like
that,
and
I
know
numerous
people
have
come
up
against
this
type
of
problem.
A
Well,
the
first
thing
I
thought
about
doing
was
going
back
to
our
handbook,
which
I
think
sometimes
we
forget
that
it
encourages
us
actually
to
start
with
a
merge
request
if
possible
and
then
lean
on
issues.
I
think
sometimes
that
gets
confused,
not
everything
starts
with
issues
actually
starts
with
a
merge
request,
and
in
this
case
it
was
a
really
small
change.
So
I
started
with
just
like
proposing
a
rename
to
push
rules
in
the
admin
area
and
from
there
you
know
you
could
visually
see
the
difference
here
like
what
was
a
change.
A
It
was
a
change
to
the
icon
and
a
change
to
the
navigation
label
in
the
left-hand
nav
and
how
we
came
to
that
decision
was
his
discussion
with,
like
mike
nichols
and
mike
jing,
like
pulling
in
other
designers
from
different
groups,
to
talk
about
this,
because
it
was
more
of
a
shared
area
of
settings
that
I
didn't
want
to
have
the
sole
voice
to.
I
wanted
to
bring
in
other
designers,
opinions
and
other
contributors,
but
we
could
actually
talk
about
an
actionable
change
here,
because
it
wasn't
just
like
drafting
something
in
figma.
A
We
were
actually
talking
about
like
okay,
what's
like
how
we
replace
it
with
what's
the
text,
how
does
this
feel?
What
does
it
show
it's
a
little
bit
more
direct
in
terms
of
where
we're
focusing
the
discussion
on
and
then
even
tying
in
some
of
the
discussion
around
how
we're
gonna
actually
go
validate
this
thing.
So
what
do
we
do
with
this?
Next,
I
wanted
to
think
about.
Okay,
we
have
an
idea,
but
are
we
ready
to
merge
it
yet,
and
so
was
it
ready
to
merge?
I
was
saying
no
like
subjectively.
A
A
Given
the
current
structure
today,
can
you
discover
settings
a
and
settings
b
and
then
compared
to
the
change,
can
you
find
settings
a
settings
be
and
then
compare
and
contrast
them?
What
I've
seen
is
we
could
use
gitpod
to
do
this?
I
think
this
would
be
awesome.
I
could
just
share
a
direct
link
which
would
be
super
easy
tying
that
into
usertesting.com
biggestcon.
Is
it
times
after
10
minutes,
so
I
would
have
to
be
actively
managing
it
to
make
sure
that
it
stays
open,
while
participants
are
actually
conducting
the
sessions.
A
Another
option
is
the
work
space
snapshot
which
doesn't
require
me
to
keep
the
environment
live.
However,
it
does
require
that
someone
already
has
an
account
with
gitlab,
github
or
bitbucket
and
already
uses
gitpod,
and
then
they
have
to
wait
for
it
to
build,
which
would
probably
exceed
the
time
allotted
in
a
short
test
which
I
think
is
like
supposed
to
be
under
10
minutes
and
then
also
there
was
like
the
consideration
of
using
a
gitlab
the
demo
site.
The
problem
with
that
is
it
uses
like
the
latest.
A
Build
that's
been
released,
not
like
a
specific
branch.
So
this
is
an
example
where
I
want
to
point
to
a
change.
That's
in
development
we're
not
actually
like
this
hasn't
been
released.
Yet,
although
gitlab
demo
would
be
super
useful,
if
you
wanted
to
test
things
that
you've
already
released
in
the
past
as
a
way
to
get
some
objective
feedback
on
a
feature
you
released,
I
could
see
one
problem,
though
users
all
using
the
same
space.
A
My
biggest
concern,
though,
is
like
the
license
requirement
stuff.
I've
redacted
some
information
off
of
this,
so
that
you
can
actually
see
who
it
was
tied
to.
I
haven't
figured
out
what
license
to
associate
to
the
gitpod
environment
or
to
like
demo.
You
can
go
into
those
things
with
the
admin
area
and
download
a
license.
I
don't
know
how
that
exposes
us
in
terms
of
vulnerability,
risks
or
like
what
that
even
means
in
terms
of
we
have
50
or
530
000
users
over
the
license
number
allotted.
A
A
A
A
D
A
F
E
Many
comments:
this
is
awesome,
I'm
so
glad
to
see
you
exploring
this.
I
agree
this
could
be
so
valuable
if
we
can
figure
it
out.
So
someone
at
get
lab
knows
the
answer
to
this,
and
they
probably
know
it
like.
If
we
put
it
in
front
of
them,
they
just
go.
Oh
you
just
whatever
so
don't
beat
your
head
against
a
wall.
If
you
need
help
tracking
who
that
person
is
down,
I'm
happy
to
help.
You
figure
that
out
I'll
start
poking
people
to
see
if
we
can
get
a
name.
A
A
G
Just
to
kind
of
follow
up
on
that,
like
I
do
think
the
demo
team
can
make
versions
or
retroactive
versions
of
the
platform
as
part
of
the
demo,
because
when
I
was
doing
my
testing,
while
back
with
the
demo
team,
they
had
defined
a
lot
of
parameters
within
the
environment.
So
perhaps
it's
worth
double
checking
or
if
you
haven't
asked
that
already.
A
A
D
F
Sure,
yes,
so
I
would
say
this
also
this
problem
I've
seen
come
up,
but
the
goal
of
the
research
will
also
determine
what
you
can
do
so,
for
example,
with
the
renaming
of
push
rules,
you
could
rely
on
something
like
first
click
testing
or
tree
testing
and
just
strip
it
back
to
the
actual
naming,
change
and
location
change.
And
then
you
would
get
around
the
need
for
licenses.
But
if
you
are
testing
aspects
of
the
navigation
design
I'll
give
you
an
example.
So
you
have
the
push
row
one
and
then
you
have
the.
F
I
think,
the
one
about
unifying
keys
and
tokens.
So
in
that
one,
you
have
more
design
changes
around
how
the
settings
are
actually
displayed.
So
I
can
see
that
bringing
in
more
conversation
around
the
licenses
and
the
design
aspect.
But
for
the
renaming
push
rules
you
could
go
with
a
first
click
test
or
a
tree
test
and
just
focus
on
the
ia
aspect
and
not
have
to
go
through
all
the
rest
of
the
things.
A
A
A
It
might
bias
their
outcome
because,
like
it
would
pretty
quickly
force
you
into
the
right
direction
and
I'm
more
interested
to
see.
Given
the
true
live
environment,
can
you
actually
find
the
thing
you're
looking
for?
It
might
not
be.
It
might
be
overkill,
but
I
was
hoping
by
doing
this
like
one
time
I
could
learn
from
it
and
then
share
the
results.
I
just
didn't
get
to
the
point
where
I
could
share
the
full
results
yet
so
I'm
sharing
the
progress
I've
made
on
it
so
far,
but
great.
B
B
B
A
Yeah,
no,
I
I
totally
abide
with
that.
I
understand
where
it's
coming
from,
I
think
the
benefit
of
being
able
to
test
a
small
changes
might
as
well
give
them
the
whole
thing
just
to
see.
Do
you
get
stuck
just
digging
through
the
main
top
page,
because
that's
where
you
landed
and
you
think
it's
somewhere
on
this
page?
Those
are
aspects
that
would
be
missed.
I
think
in
a
prototype,
if
it's
a
small
change,
obviously
like
a
whole
page
redesign
is
much
harder
to
do,
but
something
as
small
as
just
like
relabeling
a
field.
H
Yeah
I
mean
it's
been
a
minute
since
I
was
on
review
apps
like
a
year
ago
or
so,
but
I
mean
when
we
talked
about
review
apps
when
I
was
briefly
on
it.
This
was
one
of
the
use
cases
that
we
definitely
wanted
to
solve.
For
was.
We
need
to
be
able
to
do
things
like
this
spin
up
an
environment,
so
you
can
test
things
and-
and
you
know,
kind
of
a
one
click.
Here's
a
url
go
check
it
out.
Here's
an
environment
that
works,
it
hasn't
really
gotten
there.
H
A
Yeah
yeah
and
in
full
transparency
I
don't
know
how
to
set
up
a
review
app.
That's
the
that's,
probably
my
highest
barrier
to
entry
to
it
is.
I
need
to
go,
read
more
documentation
on
how
to
actually
make
that
happen,
and
perhaps
it
does
solve
this
problem
too,
but
so
far
I've
gotten
as
far
as
exploring
gitpod
gitpod's
workspace
is
being
shared
and
then
demo
site
so
review.
Apps
is
yet
another
option.
I
could
look
into.
H
C
That's
what
we
want
when
it's
something
that
is
very
complex
and
users
need
to
go
through
a
flow
that
could
be
arbitrary,
like
we
want
them
to
explore,
or
we
want
them
to
fill
in
whatever
they
want
in
a
form,
that's
much
harder
to
do
with
a
prototype.
And
so,
if
we
have
the
real
thing,
it's
it's
much
easier.
So
yeah!
I
think
that's
that's
very!
That's
something
that
we
we
should
solve
yeah
about
the
test
itself,
as
others
have
said.
C
I
think
it's
thinking
about
what
is
the
minimum
viable
test
right
when
that
there's
that
thing
with
with
paper
prototypes
and
even
other
kinds
of
prototypes,
where
you
you
fake
everything
right
so
it
looks
like
it's
working,
but
it's
not
working.
So
I
think
it's
just
being
a
bit
more
creative
with
how
what
is
the
minimum
thing
that
we
can
do
to
get
reliable
data
into
catherine's
point?
I
don't
know
exactly
what
is
the
terminology,
but
I
think,
there's
a
very
high
correlation
with
the
first
click
in
three
tests.
A
Yeah,
I
agree.
I
think
that
supports
like
andy's
position
on
like
try
prototypes
when
cat's
opinion
on
like
tree
testing.
First
click
testing
that
could
help
you
here
in
like
a
much
more
succinct
format.
I
think,
but
you
brought
the
exact
reason
why
I
think
I
was
going
down
this
track
of.
I
think
this
will
help
set
the
foundation
for
better
testing
in
the
future,
and
this
is
such
like
a
small
change
like
it's
really,
not
the
change.
That's
the
hard
part
that
that's
small,
that's
easy!
It's
more
of
the
logistics
of
well.
A
How
do
we
set
up
the
environment
that
we
can
share?
How
do
we
make
sure
that
it's,
you
know
secure
enough,
that
we
can
do
that
and
it
will
work
for
the
people
that
access
it
through
usertesting.com,
then,
when
we
want
to
do
like
a
form
great
now
we
have
all
the
mechanisms
already
hammered
out
and
we
can
move
much
faster
now.