feedback

Like it? Discuss feature requests and ideas for improvement.

feedback

Postby dml » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:44 am

Hi Cuuks,

I've been using (and enjoying!) the site for a few weeks and have some feedback and ideas.

I really like cuuks' organization and terminology. I appreciate that it takes a different approach from typical cookbooks and food sites. I especially like that the notion of 'recipe' doesn't even exist in the system. The compositions and the free-form tagging are great.

In some ways, though, it's not clear how to use these new notions. it still seems too easy for users to interpret 'composition' as 'recipe' by simply putting all ingredients in the comp and then using the 'notes' section for prep directions. Some compositions are structured this way; others are more like the 'flavor affinities' in The Flavor Bible: a core set of complementary flavors that exist independent from a particular preparation.

This second version is what I first imagined a composition to mean, and seems to be the more exciting option. It's more flexible, because if this is how its used, a composition might lead to multiple preparations: kale + potato, for example, might be prepared as caldo verde, or kale-potato gratin, or colcannon. I'm also thinking of recipe-building methodologies like those in Colicchio's Think Like a Chef, or the various deconstructions of classic dishes that are a common theme of experimental chefs. Right now it seems like each composition can only have zero or one preparations without duplicating the composition. So I'm suggesting that it might be useful to add another notion, like a preparation or dish or technique, to the site, to allow users to leap between different ways to apply a composition.

Next, I'd really like an ingredient profile page, where I can see everything about an ingredient: all the comps it's used in and all the tags it has, and maybe additional info in the future (users can star/favorite particular ingredients?). Right now, if search on 'leather', the results include cabernet sauvignon, so I know that it has that tag. But when I use it in a composition I only see a truncated list of tags for the ingredient, which doesn't include leather. Which other tags am I not seeing because the list is shortened?

I second MichaelNatkins mindmap idea! Like the graphs on foodpairing.be, only better.

Tagging: Riffing on MichaelNatkin's idea again, I wonder if users should be encouraged to add key:value tags (like machine tags on flickr and other sites) to add a level of richness to the tagging feature. So users could tag an item as texture:crunchy, or vegan:true, etc. This could be done by users without any particular feature development up front. It would just be something to either encourage, if it seems useful, or discouraged, if it seems like a quality control headache.

More soon, and thanks again for the work on developing the app, it's great to play with.
dml
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:30 am

Re: feedback

Postby stefan » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:18 am

Hi dml, thanks for the post!

It's great to see how our various design choices come across. I can't go into all the issues you raised right now. Most interesting to me:

Composition: Recipe or flavor affinity?

dml wrote:In some ways, though, it's not clear how to use these new notions. it still seems too easy for users to interpret 'composition' as 'recipe' by simply putting all ingredients in the comp and then using the 'notes' section for prep directions. Some compositions are structured this way; others are more like the 'flavor affinities' in The Flavor Bible: a core set of complementary flavors that exist independent from a particular preparation.

This second version is what I first imagined a composition to mean, and seems to be the more exciting option. It's more flexible, because if this is how its used, a composition might lead to multiple preparations: kale + potato, for example, might be prepared as caldo verde, or kale-potato gratin, or colcannon. I'm also thinking of recipe-building methodologies like those in Colicchio's Think Like a Chef, or the various deconstructions of classic dishes that are a common theme of experimental chefs. Right now it seems like each composition can only have zero or one preparations without duplicating the composition. So I'm suggesting that it might be useful to add another notion, like a preparation or dish or technique, to the site, to allow users to leap between different ways to apply a composition.


At the moment it's completely up to the user whether (s)he adds preparation-specific notes to a composition. After all, we can't really control this without removing the 'notes' alltogether. The question is, would an additional 'preparation' descriptor help focusing on the flavor affinity aspect or wouldn't it rather draw more attention to the recipe-thing? It's something we think about a lot, so keep the ideas coming. :-)

Another thing: You mention the need to duplicate a composition to add your own notes. Maybe we should really identify a unique composition by it's ingredients and remove the need/possibility to duplicate it. This would consolidate identical compositions and make it possible to see everyone's notes to a composition. Hm...
stefan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:02 pm

Re: feedback

Postby dml » Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:06 am

Thanks for the quick response.

It's tricky to get the design right to draw users into certain usage patterns, and you've done a great job with it in general so far. You can't stop someone from using 'notes' for preparation instructions, but you can provide alternatives. Regarding preparations: 'Preparation' does sound like an area where you'd put in preparation instructions, so that's not so good. Maybe it could be 'dishes', 'applications', 'appears in', or 'used in', ....

I think you're on to something with the idea of having only one unique instance of a composition. Allowing multiple users to contribute to a composition, or at least have their own notes and tags on it, would allow users to benefit more from each others' ideas.
dml
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:30 am

Re: feedback

Postby Jonas » Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:01 pm

Hey dml,

Your comments came up often in our recent discussions and development on the project. Thank you!

I really like cuuks' organization and terminology. I appreciate that it takes a different approach from typical cookbooks and food sites. I especially like that the notion of 'recipe' doesn't even exist in the system. The compositions and the free-form tagging are great.

I am glad you like the terminology. English is not our first language. We are bound to stumble. Feel free to correct, when necessary. We are very grateful for all suggestions that make this project more understandable and accessible.

From the start we intended to break the rules of regular recipe compositions. In the kitchen most of us will strive to develop our own language. Recipes can be an example of what is possible, useful to describe a technique to obtain certain results. However, what we are really working with when combining ingredients: Ideas, concepts, memories, expectations, goals, imagination, etc . is generally regarded as a magical process. I think it could be useful to look closely and see what else there is. A database with user generated content, a tagging system and a matching algorithm will be fun to play. And if all goes well, it might be a useful tool to work with as well.

***
ingredient profile page
coming (on the map since day one - it's another big one)

***
graphs and visualizations
I like them myself - as soon as there is more data

***
a composition might lead to multiple preparations


So I'm suggesting that it might be useful to add another notion, like a preparation or dish or technique, to the site, to allow users to leap between different ways to apply a composition.


Allowing multiple users to contribute to a composition, or at least have their own notes and tags on it, would allow users to benefit more from each others' ideas.


You really got us thinking, dml. Unique compositions would change a lot, as well (and make some intended features obsolete). We are working out several options right now. As always, our ressources are limited, we develop slowly -which can be good thing. We should be rolling out some exciting updates soon. Inspiring comments - thanks again!
Jonas
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:36 am

Re: feedback

Postby madooeiei » Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:28 am

Thanks for the quick response. :)
คาสิโนออนไลน์
madooeiei
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:07 am


Return to Feedback and Ideas



cron