Let pedestrians define the walkways
sivers.org
sivers.org
http://www.sweet-juniper.com/2009/06/streets-with-no-name.ht...
and a mathematical model for trail formation:
Wait, anyway, that's not a decision made at the last minute as late as possible, that's a decision made very quickly that no paths would be fine.
An unmade decision would be more like "where shall we put these paths?" "I don't know", week one has arrows stuck to wooden stakes pointing over the grass, week two has mowed paths in a different layout, month two has borrowed festival queue tape things in yet another path, staff are bored of hearing about it at meetings, students are annoyed that it keeps changing, landscapists are annoyed that it's ugly, gardners are annoyed as it's intrusive, it's wasting time, money, brainpower, cognitive space...
The only difference being, they used the trails in the snow across it to decide where to put the walkways. :)
People will not be incovenienced by gardeners!
(BTW: the analogy did not allude me! :-)
My favourite example is when I hear that Berkley did it which doesn't seem at a plausible given articles like this: http://www.peterme.com/?p=18 that point out how they went out of their way to break the natural flow of pedestrians.
Every day, at lunchtime, there were repeated admonishments to stay on the path and do not cut through the woods. And every day, immediately after lunch, someone (and oftentimes everyone) would run through the woods along the hypotenuse to get to the playground.
They tried all sorts of tricks to get us to stay on the path. They threatened instant detention for anyone caught cutting through the woods. They stationed one of the teachers aides to physically catch people who were about to stray from the path. It still didn't work, because there were so many people that broke the rules that they couldn't catch all of them.
Finally, when I returned for 3rd grade, I found that a roughly 10-foot-wide swath of the woods had been cut down, and a newly-paved asphalt path ran through it. And nobody ever took the long way around again. I think it was removed, long after I left, when the school building was enlarged.
Sometimes, it's easier to listen to your users (even if they are 5-10 year olds) than keep fighting them.
Within software architecture, I've heard this called "late binding", also the Open Future Principle: "The best way to implement the future is to avoid having to predict it" [1].
Regardless of the original source, this is a great explanation of the concept..
I disagree. You should make decisions when you have enough data and enough understanding to draw a conclusion. For example, gather data for 1 week to figure out where the pedestrians walk (instead of waiting 1 year for the conclusion to be apparent). Gathering data is more work, but for a business it can be very valuable to decide quickly and correctly (first mover, customers won't have to wait 1 year etc.)
Wanting a large green space at the center is an argument against convenient paths. So the decision wasn't about where to which paths are shortest and most convenient for getting from building to building, but about whether or not the paths should be shortest.
The problem falls apart in Oregon though. Any paths made into grass would be mud right now - so people would take other, less efficient routes.
Leaving your app - using the trail analogy - as an open, untamed field may not be the best way to go, but I don't think any app would survive by setting up rigid fences and refusing to adapt them as they apparently become obsolete.