I want to develop a game in godot engine on the theme of paintball. So far I have built a test scene. I am waiting for feedback if it is worth completing the project.

For a bit of background: I'm working on a tech demo for the Gameboy Advance, where I'm using pre-rendered backgrounds - combined with a 3D navmesh, and a camera matrix - to place actors into the scene. Because the GBA doesn't have any 3D hardware, my plan is to pre-render the actors from many different angles (eg. 8 angles around the global up/down axis, and 4 angles around the global left/right axis), and then choosing the correct angles for display. Note that rotation about the camera z axi

The launch of Dragon Quest III HD-2D Remake is fast approaching on November 14. We had the opportunity to sit down for an interview with the games producer, Masaaki Hayasaka, to chat about this stunning remake that brings back the iconic masterpiece in HD-2D.Masaaki HayasakaProducer, Dragon Quest III HD-2D RemakeHow HD-2D graphics draw out the full potential of this retro classicPlayStation Blog: HD-2D has become much more popular since games like Octopath Traveler. What are some of the unique characteristics of this visual style?In a nutshell, HD-2D is a visual style that combines pixelated characters with 3D backgrounds. Personally, I think this style works better in retro titles. When the original game first came out, players roamed the world while picturing how beautiful the landscapes must be. HD-2D actually brings that world to life.Even though the game adopts HD-2D, it is still immediately recognizable as Dragon Quest III. What do you think are the most important aspects needed to achieve the iconic Dragon Quest-style?The most obvious is the color palette. Dragon Quest games are characterized by rich, vivid colors, so we aimed to fully embrace that in the remake as well. If you compare the original game and the HD-2D remake side-by-side, the graphics will look completely different. Even so, the color palettes are similar so it shouldnt feel far off from what OG players remember.Play VideoBuilt in tandem with Yuji HoriiWhat sort of discussions did you have with Yuji Horii (creator of the Dragon Quest franchise), during development?We connected regularly from the early phases of planning till the very end of development. We exchanged a lot of details. We discussed everything from new features like the Monster Arena and additional narrative episodes, to the game balance of battles, and even the size of the character pixels.Did you make any changes based on Yuji Horiis recommendations?He made a comment around the blurring of the game background, and I find that particularly memorable. Background blur in games is usually referred to as depth of field, which is a technique also used in photography. In HD-2D, depth of field is extremely important. We had previous experience working on HD-2D games, so we thought wed already mastered the sense of implementing background blur. However, when we showed it to Horii-san, he said that the blur was far too intense, and it made him feel like there was something wrong with his eyes. He then asked us to dial back the intensity. We were quite shocked, in a good way, by his suggestion from a players point of view. However, as a result, this change made Dragon Quest III stand out from other HD-2D titles, so his recommendation was on point.So, different games leverage HD-2D in various ways?Absolutely. The only common thread between all HD-2D titles is that they place pixelated characters in a 3D world. Otherwise, every title is completely unique. For example, Octopath Traveler incorporates pixels in the background as well, but Dragon Quest III does not. The characters body proportions and pixel size also vary depending on the title. Dragon Quest III is the first-ever HD-2D title to integrate a world map where players can actually wander around.Is the distance between towns the same as the original?The layout of the buildings is exactly the same, but the scale of the map and distances have been changed. The most difficult part of the development process was scaling the map. If we had made the map as dense as the original, the game would have felt too compact in both volume and appearance. On the other hand, if we made the map too large, it would lose its perfect pacing and slow down the game. We spent a lot of time adjusting to find the ideal balance in terms of both look and feel. If you watch the teaser trailer that was released at the time of the announcement, you will notice that the scale is completely different from the finished version.The passion behind the new character customization featureIn the remake, players can customize the appearance, like hair color, of party members. Why did you decide to add this new feature?In the original, when you changed a characters vocation from Martial Artist to a Mage, the young man suddenly turned into an old man and there was no way to alter it. I personally felt that was a bit strange. Character creators or customization is very common in modern games, so I thought players would find it a bit confusing if we kept it like the original. Character customization was intended to make the game feel more modern.To tell you the truth, out of all the new features we added in the remake, Im most passionate about the character customization. I proposed it to the development team, and even when they refused, saying it was unnecessary, I kept pushing that it was absolutely crucial [laughs]. I spent about three months working on it, so it would mean a lot to me if players spent some time creating their own distinct characters.Even though you can change their appearance, the main colors for each vocation are the same as the original. How did you decide what to change and what to leave untouched?I believed it was important to respect the vocation colors that Akira Toriyama originally designed. We didnt change any of the main colors, so its easier for players to distinguish between each vocation at a glance. However, we wanted to give players the freedom to play around with hats and hairstyles as a fun new feature.

PlayStation 5 Pro launches worldwide today, November 7. Revealed on September 10, PlayStation 5 Pro is our most advanced and innovative console hardware to date, with key performance features such as an upgraded GPU, advanced ray tracing, and PlayStation Spectral Super Resolution.Play VideoThe console is available directly from PlayStation and participating retailers globally. Whether you have decided to transfer to the new console from a PlayStation 4 or PlayStation 5, or are entirely new to the PlayStation family (welcome!), heres what you need to know to get prepped for and started with your new PS5 Pro.PS5 Pro measurementsOut of the box, the PS5 Pro console is approximately 388mm x 89mm x 216mm (width x height x depth) and weighs in at around 3.1kg.PS5 Pro input/output portsInput/OutputFront of Console1 x USB Type-C port (Super-Speed USB 10Gbps)1 x USB Type-C port (High-Speed USB)Back of Console2 x USB Type-A port (Super-Speed USB 10Gbps)NetworkingEthernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T)Wi-Fi: IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/beA Disc Drive for PS5 can be purchased separately, allowing you to use PS5 and supported PS4 physical discs, and play 4K Blu-ray and DVD discs.Transfer your data from PS4, PS4 Pro or PS5 to PlayStation 5 ProIf you own a PS5, PS4 Pro, or a PS4 console, you can transfer your data to your new console. Before you start the transfer, make sure your original console is updated to the latest system software and youve synced your trophy information. On both your original console and your PS5 Pro, sign in on your PlayStation Network account . You can transfer your user information, games downloaded to your consoles hard drive or SSD, save data, and select console settings if both consoles are connected to the same network. Go to Settings > System > System Software, select Data Transfer > Continue then follow the on-screen instructions.Play VideoEnable PS5 Console Sharing and Offline PlayWhile you can have your account on multiple consoles, you can only designate one console for Console Sharing and Offline Play at a time. When you first sign into your new PS5 or PS5 Pro console, Console Sharing and Offline Play will automatically be enabled.If you sign in to a PS5 console that is not enabled as Console Sharing and Offline Play, you can still access and play purchased games from your account as well access some of your PlayStation Plus benefits as long as you are signed in with your account. It wont be accessible through other accounts that may be using the same console.Sync your DualSense controller, DualSense Edge controller, Pulse Elite Headset, Pulse Explore, and PlayStation Portal with your PS5 ProWhether youre using the new DualSense controller included with your PS5 Pro, or one you already own, youll need to pair these to your new console. Use the supplied USB-C cable to plug these into the console, and power the controller on.For the PlayStation Portal, from the home screen of your PS5 console, select Settings > System > Remote Play, and then turn on Enable Remote Play. Sign in to your PlayStation Network account on your PlayStation Portal, and follow the on-screen instructions to sync it to your new console.For your PlayStation Pulse Elite Headset, plug the supplied USB adapter into one of the rear USB Type-A ports on your console and press the PlayStation Link button on your headset.For the PlayStation Pulse Explore, make sure both of your earbuds are docked in the charging case, insert the USB adapter into one of the USB Type-A ports on your console, remove both earbuds from the case to connect them to your console.Transfer your M.2 SSD from PS5 to PS5 ProIf your original PS5 has a M.2 SSD installed, you can insert it into your PS5 Pro, following this guide.Set up a PS5 Pro with a PS5 Disc DriveIf youve purchased a separate PS5 Disc Drive to install onto your PS5 Pro, you can follow this handy guide.Pair your PS5 Pro with the PlayStation AppYou can download games while away from home, manage console storage if you dont have enough space and start a game on the app so its ready to pick up the controller and play.Play Astros PlayroomAs with all PlayStation 5 consoles, PS5 Pro comes bundled with Astros Playroom pre-installed on its console storage, which is a fantastic introduction to Team Asobis wonderful platform franchise, and also to the DualSense wireless controllers immersive features.Check out some PS5 Pro Enhanced GamesTransferring from a PS5, or new to PlayStation, theres a selection of titles with updates that will take advantage of PS5 Pro, which launch alongside the console. Heres just some of them:Play Video

Just like the early phases of Marvel Cinematic Universe turned B- and C-list heroes into the biggest stars on the planet, the next chapter of the mega-franchise intends to pluck side characters from passable movies and iffy TV shows for a team-up movie with high potential. Marvel and Disney released a new extended trailer for Thunderbolts* on Saturday, after a debut at the emerging Brazil D23 convention, and it feels a bit like old times: chemistry, verve, and even a bit of color-graded polish we havent seen in an MCU movie since maybe ever? If Deadpool & Wolverine made every self-referential punchline imaginable to get Marvel through a down year, next Mays tentpole could actually revitalize the ongoing saga.Every character gets the spotlight in the new trailer, including Yelena Belova/White Widow (Florence Pugh), Alexei Shostakov/Red Guardian, U.S. Agent/John Walker (Wyatt Russell), Ghost/Ava Starr (Hannah John-Kamen), Taskmaster/Antonia Dreykov (Olga Kurylenko), and Winter Soldier/Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan). Plus theres Bob (Lewis Pullman). though it remains unclear if hes friend or foe. Then theres Julia Louis-DreyfusValentina Allegra de Fontainein the Nick Fury slot, bringing the zings and jabs. The big shock is, despite most of the cast being pulled from Black Widow and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, ventures that remain a total blur for so many reasons, the cast brings the rapport. And Stan has really evolved into the all-star badass of the MCU, huh? He goes full Terminator in a clip from the movies big desert chase. Fun! Is it all just a well-cut trailer dropped at a time when a dash of old-school Marvel flavor goes a long way or will director Jake Schreier (Robot and Frank) deliver the goods? Well know when Thunderbolts* hits theaters on May 2, 2025.

The ending of Scott Beck and Bryan Woods horror movie Heretic comes as a surprise: Its a silent, transcendent moment after a tense, dialogue-heavy story. (End spoilers ahead, as the headline suggests.) A seemingly benign man, Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), traps two young female Mormon missionaries in his house to test their faith and explain his own. He proclaims hes going to show them a miraculous resurrection, but his miracle turns out to be fakery and manipulation.Mr. Reed murders one of the missionaries, Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) but late in the movie, she seems to miraculously resurrect long enough to kill him, saving her partner, Sister Paxton (Chloe East). The movie ends with Sister Paxton escaping the house, staggering through its grounds, and falling. In the penultimate shot, she sees a butterfly land on her hand, and regards it with wonder its a callback to a line earlier in the movie, where Paxton said that after death, shed like to be resurrected as a butterfly, and visit her loved ones.The implication is that shes seen the promised miracle after all, and that now, her partners spirit is visiting her in a new form. But the final shot of the movie shows the butterfly isnt there after all. What does it mean? Polygon asked writer-directors Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (A Quiet Place), who discussed their take on the ending, what they want people talking about after the movie, and how Joe Dirt helps explain it all.[Ed. note:This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.]Polygon: Im sure a lot of people will be trying to unpack and debate Heretics final moment. For me, it felt like a statement about faith and belief Sister Paxton believes Sister Barnes spirit is with her, and takes comfort from it, so it doesnt matter whether thats objectively true or not. Can you can speak to what you meant by the contrast between those final two shots?Scott Beck: Without giving our own direct feeling on the moment, what youre talking about, that its reflecting upon the statement of belief that is the sweet spot. We screened the movie a few times at AFI, and Fantastic Fest, and Toronto, and whats been really engaging for us is to hear many people have multiple interpretations of what that ending means, and how that intersects with their own sense of self, and their own sense of how they view the world.Sometimes, days later, we hear that theyve reflected upon it in a different way. And that, to us, is kind of the beauty of life not be stuck in stasis, or stuck in the certainty of This is the only way to view the world around me, or to view a relationship or non-relationship with faith, belief, disbelief. To keep your eyes and ears open and interact with the world in a way that is both reactionary and proactive, but youre always kind of being fluid in the way that you view the world.Bryan Woods: Its a very difficult thing to talk about, because we make the movie, we spend three years trying to put this conversation in a cinematic context, and were timid about coming in with our thoughts about what we were trying to say. Then it reduces that experience to a soundbite.Beck: Its an ending by design to leave it with the audience. Thats really it. The ambition is to deliver questions, and not to necessarily deliver an answer, because more than anything, this to us would be a take-home movie.Woods: I know that theres this feeling people get to the end and theyre kind of curious, are we coming out on belief or disbelief? Which is it? Which is maybe too binary for what were talking about. But one of the things were certainly discussing in the film is a critique of certainty, and a critique of in life, whether its religion or politics or even moviegoing, this feeling of, I know whats right, and youre wrong. We hate that, because that kills conversation, and then no dialogue exists.Our taste ranges from lowbrow movies to highbrow movies. Were all over the map. I love a good lowbrow, broad comedy like Joe Dirt, but if somebody came up to me and said, I know that Joe Dirt is the greatest movie of all time, I would be like, Youre terrifying me. Thats scary to me.Beck: But if they said its the worst movie of all time, I also would disagree with that, too!Woods: That would also be scary! So then you apply that to politics, and you apply that to discourse and religion, and therein lies one of the things were attempting to get out of this.Beck: I feel like the internet has made human beings seem dumb, but thats not the case. Were all very complex intellectual people that dont share 100% of the same views, and we cant all be lumped into one group. And thats what I feel like culture has cultivated right now. And thats a shame. And I hope theres a way to get over this hump of where we are currently as a society .Woods: And its hard, because of the digital aspect of social media. Were not present together as people. Were on screens, and were commenting, and it just dehumanizes the conversation. And thats part of the problem, I think as well.Whats the ideal way you want people to walk away from this movie? What do you want them to be talking about or thinking about?Beck: I hope theyre thinking about their own relationship to their ideologies. Whether it is coming from an atheist perspective or a perspective steeped in rich belief, I hope its a conversation, a conversation that echoes what Brian and I had over the last almost 30 years of friendship. Why have we come to the conclusions we came to? To us, the relationship with these great existential questions is ever-evolving.Thats the fun of life the mysteries of life, the pursuit of questioning what is around you, and how to be a good human being, and how to interact with the world through that lens. So we hope that there is a lot of introspection, that people can engage with it at that level.Woods: And talk about it. Were at an interesting point in culture certainly American culture, but I am sure theres a kind of global feeling about this too, where its hard to talk about things. The internet dramatizes sides. Youre either here or youre there, and fuck everybody else. When the reality is, were all probably somewhere on the spectrum.And the idea of being able to have a civil conversation about anything has almost completely disappeared. So one of our hopes was to dramatize a conversation about religion, a thing that is difficult, that youre almost not supposed to talk about dramatize it to the most extreme level, so that any conversation that follows the film will feel civil and cordial by comparison to the experience that hopefully the audience just had.And if we can translate a cinematic conversation to a conversation that people have at dinner after they see the film, for us, that would be the equivalent of a home run. That would be really special. Even if they just talk about religion for five minutes after seeing the movie, that would be a win as well.Heretic is in theaters now.

Kevin Frankental tried different mediums throughout his life, but he could never fully commit to a particular endeavor until he paid a visit to a friends steel workshop. Even though it wasnt in an ideal location, the space was an oasis for the makers and Frankental, too. From that moment on, he knew what he was meant to do.Frankental founded Lemon, based in his native South Africa, to offer simple, elegant furnishings that enhance interiors. He is not interested in looking at trendy items when he begins a project, only to produce another version of a piece that already exists. Instead, he delves into the archives searching for art and films he can reference, capturing their essence for Lemons unique models.Kevin Frankental \\\ Photo: Sarah de PinaYet Frankental often finds inspiration among his team members, an eclectic group with their own diverse interests, from graphics to photography. We have always looked to employ designers from different disciplines, Frankental says. Working with such a melting pot of talent has definitely shaped my approach to design.He is also ever-aware of the pervasive sense of sameness in every arena, and strives to achieve the delicate balance between classic and contemporary. Fascinated by the elusive notion of timelessness, Frankental wants the brand furniture to not only have allure, but also possess an enduring quality that resonates with each generation.As Frankental refines and perfects his forms, he savors the ability to sit down and concentrate on a task for an extended period of time. I find this far more valuable than just being in a responsive mode, he notes. I think when you learn to work this way you feel a little more fulfilled with what you are doing, and this concept of work-life balance is no longer relevant.Today, Kevin Frankental joins us for Friday Five!Photo: Cerruti and Draime1. Paris apartment by Fabrizio CasiraghiFabrizios work is deeply layered and crosses over many design eras. His work always feels luxurious but not overly precious. A place you would want to live rather than admire from afar.Photo: Courtesy Somerset House2. The Somerset House in New YorkA collectible design store I find myself returning to. There is a warmth in all they do and for me it feels modernized and not particularly caught in a specific moment.Photo: The Invisible Collection3. Mawu Chair by Laura GonzalezBrilliant designer in concept, design, and materiality.Photo: Courtesy of OfHouses4. Die Es House by Gwen and Gawie Fagan in Cape TownA house I look at constantly Die Es. Not only because of the architecture and genius behind it, but the story. The Fagans built Die Es in Cape Town with their kids and they had very little money at the time. They wanted their children to feel part of the creation of something very special. Every detail was considered and created by the family. They lived in the house from 1965. Sadly, Gawie passed away in 2020. Gwen still lives in the house.Photo: Courtesy of Franois Laffanour Galerie Downtown5. Long Bench by Jose Zanine CaldasI was recently introduced to the work of Jose Zanine Caldas. His large wooden pieces are crafted from a single tree trunk, and you can see that every detail has been made by hand. There is such beauty in the imperfections.Works by Lemon:Winston ServerAshby Side TableWinston Drinks CabinetWinston Drinks Cabinet

Leica is expanding its Q-Cameras even more. The Leica Q seriesfull-frame cameras have always been loved by photographers willing to pay a bit of extra cash, but since 2015 theyve all offered the same 28mm f/1.7 lens. That, however, is now changing with the Leica Q3 43, which is almost identical to the standard Leica Q3 but has a 43mm f/2 lens.The APO-Summicron 43 f/2 ASPH lens is totally new for Leica, and as mentioned, it kind of represents a big shift for the Q series. On top of the lens change, the Q3 43 also has a gray leatherette exterior, which helps give it a unique look in Leicas lineup.Leica designs have been an icon in the camera world for many years now. Despite the new gray leather look, the Q3 43 continues that tradition, shifting things a little, but retaining the impeccable build quality, minimalistic design, and classic red dot logo.The rest of the camera remains largely unchanged, which is a positive. It still features the same sensor with an ISO range from 50 to 100,000, the same hybrid autofocus system, and the capability to capture 8K video. Leica enthusiasts will be pleased that the familiar controls are retained, allowing users of previous Leica Q series cameras to handle this model with ease. The only notable adjustment is the dedicated digital crop button, which now crops to 60mm, 75mm, 90mm, 120mm, and 150mm equivalents.The camera offers some smart features too, just like the standard model. It can be paired with the Leica Fotos app to transfer data quickly and easily. The app even allows users to load Leica looks onto the camera. The Leica Q3 43 adds a new Leica look in the form of Leica Chrome, which is designed to apply an analog charm to JPEG images.The other difference between the Q3 43 and the standard Q3 comes in the price tag. While the Q3 is priced at $6,295, the newer variant is even pricier, sitting at $6,895. The Leica Q3 43 is available via the Leica online store or authorized Leica dealers.

Among diverse approaches, the teams can find a unique way on their test automation journey and select the strategy that matches their needs. So lets dive deeper into pyramids, diamonds, hourglasses and other interesting objects.In the massive hype around automation in the QA field, it is easy to get lost in various approaches. The multiple perspectives on automating tests coexist. There is no recipe for success but there are some common-sense patterns to follow. Responding to the feedback of the readers of Test smart: how to apply automation and stay sane?, Ive decided to leave my two cents on automation strategies that might be handy for agileteams.No automation strategySometimes having no strategy is also a strategy. As someone who lives in a Mediterranean country, I have noticed an interesting thing about harvesting olives. Some bigger olive oil makers have used electric rakes to collect the olives from the trees. At the same time, others like us, who possess only five not-so-high olive trees, have picked the yield manually.The same refers to the reality of testing. If your product is small-scale (a few quite low olive treese.g. a landing page with registration and login flows), it may be too early and pricy to automate UI tests. Instead, the manual tests could be done promptly.This works well when you are developing application prototypes or working on Proof of Concept, where the focus is more on rapid feature development than maintaining automated tests.Also, if the user flows are raw, it will be a waste of time and budget if you start automating tests. Once the rework is needed in the UI/UX, some intervention will be required for the automated tests,too.Yet, if your product matures and more olive treesflowsare added, get ready to start using electric rakes: automate the tests for the most critical flows where applicable.If you intend to make a lot out of automating your testing efforts, think strategically and involve the team members in a discussion. From my observations, the discussions might be veryhot.Test automation pyramid as the goldenstandardDo you remember the old test automation pyramid?The last time I talked about it to developers, some guys had yawning faces. Yet what if we turn the pyramid upside down to understand it better? Magically, here the pyramid turned into the bugfilter.Look how multiple bugs fly intoit: Unit tests could filter bugs faster (thats why more unit tests are needed!); Integration tests will be your safety net in the middle (you should not neglect thispart); End-to-end (UI) tests will catch the bugs at the latest stage (and more rework will be required).As Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispinnote:Teams that practice test-driven development (TDD) build up a solid base of unit- and component-level tests that help guide code design. In most contexts, teams want to have the biggest proportion of their automated tests at the lowest level of the pyramid.Furthermore, it is smart not to wait until the bugs fly into the products UI layer. Think whether your team can create more tests for the prior layers of the pyramid (unit, integration) and catch the defectsearly.Anyhow, lets be realistic: the pyramid (bug filter) is the goal that should be targeted. However, in the real world, you and your teammates might agree that your current automation approach reminds you more of otherobjects.Diamond alternativeFor instance, your current automation strategy might be reflected in a diamond, where integration tests are in favour. It makes sense for some types of projects. Once your product is based on microservices, integration tests could bring more value than unit tests or end-to-end (UI)tests.In short, integration tests check how an application behaves once it interacts with other services. Usually, the mocks represent external services so that integration tests run in isolation. It is important to note that the main advantage of integration tests is that they are not as flaky as end-to-end tests in terms of maintenance.HourglassYour approach can also look like an hourglass: there is a large suite of unit tests and there is a certain part of end-to-end (UI) tests, yet there is low number of integration tests or they are missing at all. This could work in certain cases but due to the lack of integration tests, the teams risk that more bugs may fly into the UIlayer.As a result, there could be too many end-to-end test failures. You can avoid this case by adding a suite of medium-scope testsintegration tests.Ice creamconeBesides, there might be a pattern of an inverted pyramid, or ice cream cone: many end-to-end (UI) tests are automated, and there are quite a few integration tests but very few unittests.Overall, this pattern should be avoided when planning a testing strategy. The chances of detecting bugs in later stages of development are getting higher, thus it may cost a lot to make additional adjustments. Nevertheless, according to Kristijan Kralj, there are a few exceptions where the inverted pyramid approach could beuseful.The cases where this makes senseare:Putting legacy code into test automationyou are trying to add some automated tests to your application, but UI and business logic are tightly coupled. This means that its not possible to write unit tests, but you need to start with UI and integration tests. After you decouple UI from business logic, then you might add unittests.Your app mainly calls other API-sif your applications logic consists mainly of calling other libraries and/or performing lots of network requests, then it doesnt make too much sense to write unit tests forit.Interaction with the real deviceif you are working on an application that will be deployed on a physical device, then you might benefit more from having UI tests that will check the application worksfine.Who should be in charge of automation?Traditionally, there is a debate about whether test automation should be the sole responsibility of QA Engineers or Developers. To my mind, the truth is in the middle. Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispinsuggest:Because automating tests through the UI tends to be more time-consuming, theres a temptation to hand that off to a separate automation team or have the testers on the team take full responsibility for it. We recommend that the developers, who are good at writing efficient, maintainable code, work together with the testers, who are good at specifying test cases, to automate tests through the UI as well as all other layers above the base level of the pyramid. Having testers and programmers pair or work in ensembles to automate tests saves time. Your team will enjoy better-designed tests whose results you cantrust.From my experience, the unit tests are more in the domain of Developers, whereas creating integration (e.g. API) and end-to-end tests could be done collaboratively. Surely, the QA Engineer could give a hint about tests that should be picked for automation, and together with the Developer, they could speed up the test automation endeavour. After all, lets keep in mind that quality is a teameffort.There is a thing Ive learned working in various teams: automation strategy is unique. This means that even the golden standard of the test automation pyramid might not work for every product. So gather your team and discuss the current state of your test automation efforts and where you aim to get on thisjourney.With some teams, we visualised the testing pipeline to understand the current drawbacks of our automation strategy. I remember drawing a simple image that showed which tests were used for each development stage. Here is one simplified example ofit:Once you see any gaps in your testing pipeline (e.g. certain tests are missing), make sure to discuss with the team what should be improved. Some stages involve human (manual) testing, e.g. exploratory tests or user tests, as automation has multiple constraints, and this isOK.All in all, it is handy to outline how your testing activities are distributed in the development process: note which tests are applied and at which stage. Once you get a clearer picture of how testing is functioning across the development, it will be easier to tackle the main pain points for automation strategy. There is always a space for improvement if you want toimprove.You may check my LinkedIn page if you feel like connecting with me or are curious about my background. As a QA Engineer with strong commercial experience, Im ready to communicate with teams looking for guidance and help in enhancing product quality andtesting.Illustrations: by me (Apple Pencil, iPad, and no AI:))Resources:Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin, Test Automation Pyramid: https://agiletester.ca/test-automation-pyramid/Ritesh Kapoor, Testing Automation, What are Pyramids and Diamonds?: https://ritesh-kapoor.medium.com/testing-automation-what-are-pyramids-and-diamonds-67494fec7c55Uladzislau Ramanenka, Hourglass into Pyramid: how you can improve the structure of your tests: https://medium.com/bumble-tech/hourglass-into-pyramid-ccf4b4da7785Kristijan Kralj, How to Use Testing Pyramid to Delight Your Boss: https://methodpoet.com/testing-pyramid/Test smart: which automation strategy to choose for peace of mind? was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Your users want results, not compromises.Photo by Andre Frueh onUnsplashYour design team is pushing for simplification to make users lives easier. Your sales team is advocating for power features to close deals. Your customer success team is demanding botha clearly impossible feat.Youre stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. The next step is for you to choose which flavor of pain you want thisquarter.If this sounds familiar, youre notalone.The whole scenario exemplifies the casualties of the usability vs. utilitywar.But the problem isnt what you think it iswhich is why you keep getting surprised when deals dont close and customers churn, often for contradictory reasons.The reality isthis:The battle between usability and utility is a futile war thats destroying product value on both sides. While most companies choose between power and simplicity at every turn, the best understand that the right answer, as always, lies somewhere in betweenand they find a way to maximize both utility and usability.Its not a zero-sumgame.The high cost of the false dichotomyProduct teams the world over are bleeding value trying to pick sides in a war they shouldnt be fighting.Treating usability and utility as opposing forces has created a generation of products that either overwhelm users with power they cant access, or underwhelm them with simplicity they cantscale.The cost isnt just in lost dealsits in the very soul of product development.Death by perfectionOn the one side, you have designers on a quest for the perfect user experience. When you fight this fight, unintended consequences ripple through the entire product lifecycle.Beautiful interfaces temporarily (and only temporarily) mask missing functionalityeventually new users realize that their needs are not being met, and *poof* theyregoneSimplification efforts accidentally remove critical power user features (or they do so not-so-accidentally) (you tell me how important those power users are or arent to your business)User testing focuses on ease metrics while missing capability gapsEngineers, what with their logical brains and all, dont react well when told to remove useful complexity (which by the way, they spent a lot of time thinking about and building)When you sacrifice utility at the altar of usability, you dont just lose featuresyou lose your products reason for existing (i.e., its value to users). If its pretty but doesnt do anything useful, then its prettyuseless.Death by featurefactoryThe opposite approachpiling on features in the name of powercreates a devastating spiral of complexity.Feature bloat makes simple tasks unnecessarily complicated (where do I even go to do thatthing?)Training costs skyrocket as complexity compoundsboth when onboarding new users, and when onboarding newhiresSupport tickets keep rising and rising and risingusers cant keep it up with it all, theyve only got so much brain cache and muscle memory to goaroundTech debt accumulates as features interact in unexpected (read: should-have-been-expected-but-remained-unplanned-for) waysUser satisfaction paradoxically drops as capabilities increaseAdding features without considering their accessibility isnt building valueits building barriers to success. The more friction you add, the slower users moveand when they hit a critical slowness threshold, theybail.A path to powerful simplicityAs always, the answer isnt one or the otherits somewhere in themiddle.But its a bit more nuanced than that aswell.Its not a matter of reducing complexity in favor of some extra usability, or trading a feature or two on the roadmap for sorely-needed UX-improvement time, or deciding that the team should sacrifice usability and/or user testing so you can move faster and/or break more things, respectively.Those are just compromises.What you need is a mindsetshift.Dont sacrifice one for the other. Build a product that is both usable and useful, all at once, together.Step 1: Focus onvalueThe ever-important first step is to acknowledge, understand, and agree that success comes from focusing on user outcomes rather than feature lists or design principles.Each feature must tie directly to measurable uservalueEnd of list. If not value, you have gifted your usersnothing.True product value isnt about features or designits about enabling user success throughboth.Step 2: Iteratively build value naturallyComplexity doesnt have to be overwhelming. You just need to introduce it at the right time, at the rightpace.Interfaces should prioritize frequent tasks while making power accessible (albeit not via minimalclicks)Complex workflows should be broken down into digestible steps (and take advantage of the SparkEffect)Learning curves should feel naturalgradual, not exponential or step functionsAdvanced capabilities should be introduced contextually, not haphazardly strewn about theproductFeatures should follow consistent, familiar patternsusers shouldnt need to learn new paradigms on everypageGreat products dont just contain powerthey reveal it at exactly the right moment, allowing users to seize it when they can most benefit fromit.Step 3: Ensure users feel empowered to attainvalueNone of this focus on value can work if users themselves dont feel like its possible to achieve what they want to achieve (or, feel like its too hard, or not worth the time oreffort).Advanced capabilities should feel like rewards, not obstaclesHints in the UI should guide users toward greater masterythey should nudge, not force (said another way, those power user features arent hidden, theyre just tucked away in a sensical manner, waiting to be revealed)Power user paths shouldnt obstruct casual users (or users on the path to power userstatus)Features that dont add value should be deprecated (or at least pushed aside that much more)the complication for the 99% isnt worth it just to satisfy the edge case needs of the1%Products win when they grow with their users instead of forcing users to adapt to them. And more importantly, the users win when they can do what they need to do without being confused by what theydont.How to know itsworkingUnderstanding whether youre succeeding requires zeroing in on metrics thatmatter.And those metrics are the ones that are directly tied toyou guessed itvalue.So watch for signs that users are attaining that value.E.g.:Time-to-value decreases for new users (note: this is not onboarding time, it is the time it takes for a user to realize actual value and experience their first Aha!moment)Cumulative value (however that is measured for your users) continuously increases over time (put serious thought into what value truly means for your usersit can be revenue earned, time saved, users acquired, customer satisfaction achieved, anythingjust make sure it matters to your users, notyou)Support tickets decrease and shift from basics to advanced topics (if the easy stuff isnt buried amongst a mountain of complicatedness, users will need to ask less questions aboutit)Feature adoption increases with product tenure (note: feature adoption in and of itself is not a value metric, but rather an indicator; still, especially for products that offer a large amount of features, this should generally increase overtime)Power features see organic discovery and adoption (but only by the users who actually need it, allowing the rest to go on their merryway)Success isnt measured by what your product can doits measured by what users actually accomplish withit.In closingStop fighting a senseless war of usability vs.utility.Learn from all the products-that-could-have-been.Choose value. Focus on helping your users accomplish their goals, instead of providing them endless actions to take or over-simplifying capabilities in the name of cleanUI/UX.Its not that usability and utility dont matterthey do. Its that their balance will come naturally when you focus on helping your userswin.So the next time someone asks you whether the team should be prioritizing power or simplicity, remember this: the wrong answer is choosing between them. The right answer is making them work together to create products that both delight and empower users at every step of theirjourney.Speaking of usability and utility Are you tired of fighting Jiras interface? I get it. Thats why were building Momentumits Jira on the backend, but with a UX that actually helps you do agile. No migration necessary. Curious? Join the waitlist.Great products transcend the Usability vs. Utility debate was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.