“…it [TV] stopped showing anything that was vaguely informative or even interesting. If you rule out the ‘10 green celebrities’ genre and the promises of brilliant insights into archaeology or climate change or ecology that deliver half an idea in a decorative hour, and are not interested in watching people cook or have their houses or gardens destroyed, you are left with the news and weather. And I doubt either will benefit much from 3D.”

I agree with you, except for the bit about the news, which seems aimed at 3 year olds with a learning difficulty.

My partner and I recently watched a pair of CDs. “Civilisation” (Kenneth Clark 1969) and “The Ascent of Man” (1973, Jacob Bronowski). I don’t think either could be made today. Both would be deemed ‘elitist’, ‘inaccessible’, or just plain ‘boring’. David Attenborough’s excellent wildlife programmes have only survived because they feature animals eating each other. University Challenge is probably surviving solely on the hope that Jeremy Paxman will lose his rag one day. And in the space previously occupied by science programming, we are expected to put up with celebrity scientists whose role largely consists of standing in front of expensively filmed locations across the world, edging, through the course of an entire hour, unbearably slowly towards a single statement of fact that would take about 5 seconds to look up on the internet.

(In summary, me, me me!)

P.S. Thanks for reintroducing me to Dilbert.

This can’t be emphasized enough. I don’t know how many times we’ve made the decision to drop the “nice to have” feature to make some release date, only to have to deal with the lack of that feature within weeks or days of making the decision to drop it.

If you know a feature is going to be necessary because you know the user story like Chris describes it, go with your gut and include the feature. Without it, you’re not REALLY making the release date like you say you are.