The blog post "Common mistakes in architecture diagrams (2020)" identifies several pitfalls that make diagrams ineffective. These include using inconsistent notation and terminology, lacking clarity on the intended audience and purpose, including excessive detail that obscures the key message, neglecting important elements, and poor visual layout. The post emphasizes the importance of using the right level of abstraction for the intended audience, focusing on the key message the diagram needs to convey, and employing clear, consistent visuals. It advocates for treating diagrams as living documents that evolve with the architecture, and suggests focusing on the "why" behind architectural decisions to create more insightful and valuable diagrams.
The blog post "Common Mistakes in Architecture Diagrams (2020)" from Ilograph emphasizes the importance of clear and effective communication in architectural diagrams, highlighting several common pitfalls that hinder comprehension and ultimately diminish their value. The post argues that while diagrams are crucial for conveying complex system designs, poorly constructed diagrams can be worse than having no diagrams at all, leading to confusion, misinterpretations, and ultimately hindering project success.
The authors categorize these common mistakes into several key areas:
1. Lack of Clarity and Purpose: The post stresses the necessity of a well-defined purpose for every diagram. Diagrams should answer specific questions and cater to a particular audience. Without a clear objective, diagrams risk becoming cluttered and confusing, failing to convey any meaningful information. This lack of clarity often manifests in ambiguous or missing labels, inconsistent use of shapes and colors, and a general lack of visual hierarchy.
2. Excessive Detail: The post cautions against overwhelming the audience with unnecessary details. Including every single component or interaction can obscure the overall architecture and make the diagram difficult to understand. The authors advocate for a level of abstraction appropriate to the intended audience and the specific purpose of the diagram. This involves selectively choosing which elements to include and which to omit, focusing on the most relevant aspects of the system.
3. Inconsistent Notation and Style: Consistency is paramount for readability. Using different shapes, colors, or line styles for the same type of component across different diagrams (or even within the same diagram) creates confusion and makes it harder to interpret the information. The post recommends establishing a clear visual language and adhering to it rigorously. This includes using a consistent legend or key to explain the meaning of different visual elements.
4. Ignoring the Audience: The post highlights the importance of tailoring diagrams to the specific knowledge and needs of the target audience. A diagram designed for a technical audience will likely differ significantly from one intended for business stakeholders. Understanding the audience's familiarity with the system and their specific information needs is crucial for creating effective and relevant diagrams.
5. Neglecting Aesthetics: While not the primary focus, the post acknowledges the importance of visual appeal. A well-designed diagram is not only easier to understand but also more engaging and persuasive. This involves paying attention to layout, spacing, color choices, and overall visual balance. A cluttered and visually unappealing diagram can detract from the message and make it less likely to be effectively communicated.
6. Using the Wrong Diagram Type: Different types of diagrams are suited for different purposes. The post briefly touches upon the importance of choosing the right diagram type, whether it's a network diagram, a deployment diagram, a component diagram, or another type, to effectively convey the intended information. Using the wrong type of diagram can lead to misinterpretations and obscure the relevant aspects of the architecture.
In conclusion, the Ilograph post emphasizes the crucial role of clear, concise, and well-designed architecture diagrams in successful software development. By avoiding these common mistakes, architects and developers can ensure that their diagrams effectively communicate complex system designs and facilitate better understanding among stakeholders. The post advocates for a thoughtful and purposeful approach to diagram creation, emphasizing clarity, consistency, and audience awareness as key principles for effective visual communication.
Summary of Comments ( 69 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42990546
HN commenters largely agreed with the author's points on diagram clarity, with several sharing their own experiences and preferences. Some emphasized the importance of context and audience when choosing a diagram style, noting that highly detailed diagrams can be overwhelming for non-technical stakeholders. Others pointed out the value of iterative diagramming and feedback, suggesting sketching on a whiteboard first to get early input. A few commenters offered additional tips like using consistent notation, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and ensuring diagrams are easily searchable and accessible. There was some discussion on specific tools, with Excalidraw and PlantUML mentioned as popular choices. Finally, several people highlighted the importance of diagrams not just for communication, but also for facilitating thinking and problem-solving.
The Hacker News post titled "Common mistakes in architecture diagrams (2020)" linking to an ilograph blog post has generated several comments discussing the merits and nuances of the original article.
Several commenters agree with the author's points about the importance of clarity and conciseness in diagrams. One commenter highlights the crucial distinction between diagrams meant for different audiences, suggesting that a diagram for a technical audience would differ significantly from one for business stakeholders. They emphasize the need to tailor diagrams to the specific understanding and needs of the intended viewers.
Another commenter expands on the idea of iterative diagram creation, advocating for starting with a simple sketch and progressively adding detail based on feedback and evolving understanding. This approach, they argue, prevents diagrams from becoming overly complex and ensures they remain relevant to the project's current state.
The issue of diagram maintenance is also raised. One commenter points out the difficulty of keeping diagrams up-to-date and accurate as systems evolve. They suggest that the effort required to maintain complex diagrams often outweighs their benefits, leading to stale and misleading documentation. This leads to a discussion on tooling and automation, with some suggestions for tools that can generate diagrams automatically from code or configuration files.
A contrasting viewpoint is offered by a commenter who suggests that sometimes, a purposefully incomplete or "messy" diagram can be valuable. They argue that such diagrams can spark conversations and uncover hidden assumptions or misunderstandings within a team. This perspective challenges the notion that all diagrams must be perfectly polished and complete.
Furthermore, the discussion touches on the importance of consistent symbology and notation within diagrams. One commenter laments the lack of standardized symbols, noting that different teams and organizations often use different visual representations for the same concepts. This can lead to confusion and misinterpretations, particularly when collaborating across teams or companies. Another commenter suggests leveraging existing standards, such as those defined by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) when depicting cloud-native architectures.
Several commenters also share their preferred diagramming tools and techniques, with mentions of tools like draw.io, Excalidraw, and PlantUML. This adds a practical dimension to the discussion, offering concrete suggestions for those looking to improve their diagramming practices.
Finally, some commenters express skepticism about the value of diagrams altogether, arguing that well-written code and documentation can often be more effective than visual representations. While acknowledging the potential benefits of diagrams, they caution against over-reliance on them and emphasize the importance of clear and concise written communication.