3
\$\begingroup\$

Taking a device to market

Often wondered the utility of this mechanism, but this feels like it might be a candidate.

  1. The asker doesn't know what he doesn't know:
    This isn't a knock on the user, just recognition that the question requires a high degree of expertise to ask properly. You can't ask if you don't know, and you how can you learn if you can't ask

  2. Despite comments to the contrary, this is most certainly a topic for EEs

  3. It can be broken up into chunks. PCB printing and assembly, final contract assembly, harness making, regulatory issues, design for programming and testing, ...

Thoughts?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I concur with you and I have (greatly) expanded the answer to try and break out the individual discussions required; I suspect a lot of EE.SE users may find that useful. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter Smith
    Commented Jul 13, 2018 at 16:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps the first question to ask is, "What are the larger categories related to X, which have natural demarcations to separate them?" Similar to whether or not Pluto is a planet -- it is NOT, because it is separated by 5 orders of magnitude along an objective axis that astronomers as scientists discovered. The point here being that categories often have very distinct and very clear demarcations between them and these are not always "a matter of varying opinion." A good answer may be possible. With that good answer in hand, further good questions can be asked. I think. \$\endgroup\$
    – jonk
    Commented Jul 13, 2018 at 17:56

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
\$\begingroup\$

Personally I don't like community wiki. Design by committee rarely works, and a community wiki answer is no exception. You generally get a reasonable repository of information, but then inevitably some weenie comes by and adds something that doesn't really fit, or a detail that distracts more than illuminates, etc. This doesn't happen with separate answers because the weenie comments get pushed to the bottom due to separate voting on each answer.

Instead of trying to create one large dump of info regarding the whole process of going from prototype to production, it should be broken into multiple questions. Peter's answer to the question on the main site breaks the topic down nicely into pieces that we might be able to manage as individual questions. Even then there is a danger of too broad, so each question needs to be asked carefully with that in mind.

I do agree that this is very much a EE topic.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree that some of the areas are still broad, but with some guidance (rather than just saying close - too broad) each topic can be managed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter Smith
    Commented Jul 13, 2018 at 17:10
2
\$\begingroup\$

I understand the motivation for community wiki - it invites collaboration. However, useful collaboration doesn't happen very often, and there isn't actually a site privilege requirement that makes it beneficial. A random person off the street can propose an edit to any of your posts (to be reviewed, but still) right now. It also removes your reward for putting together a detailed answer.

The close reason of "Too Broad" is designed to protect the community - it prevents a naive question from falling down a pit of follow-up explanations. These kinds of questions or arrays of questions require a long, detailed answer that has a chance of only being useful for that one user.

If you want to do this question, here's what I would recommend:

  • Ask and answer the question yourself. I'll throw up Olin's schematic drawing post as an example (and no, I wouldn't make it CW again given the choice).
  • Scope and define your terms in the question
  • Don't make the question topic space any bigger than needed
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .