Add comprehensive decision history log for tracking all major project choices and rationale
This commit is contained in:
288
knowledge-base/development/decision-history.md
Normal file
288
knowledge-base/development/decision-history.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
|
|||||||
|
# Decision History Log
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Project Foundation Decisions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Technology Stack Selection
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Use Vanilla HTML5/JavaScript instead of frameworks
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Maximum performance with minimal overhead
|
||||||
|
- No build system complexity for prototype stage
|
||||||
|
- Educational value in understanding core web technologies
|
||||||
|
- Easier deployment and debugging
|
||||||
|
- Future framework migration possible if needed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: React, Vue.js, Svelte
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: More manual DOM management, less component reusability
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Confirmed working well
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Graphics Technology Choice
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Canvas 2D API for game rendering
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Excellent performance for 2D graphics
|
||||||
|
- Wide browser compatibility
|
||||||
|
- Precise control over rendering pipeline
|
||||||
|
- Suitable for particle effects and animations
|
||||||
|
- Simpler than WebGL for current scope
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: WebGL, SVG, DOM manipulation
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Limited 3D capabilities, manual optimization needed
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Excellent performance achieved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Single-File Architecture
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Keep entire game in single `index.html` file
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Instant deployment to any static host
|
||||||
|
- No build process required
|
||||||
|
- Easy to share and debug
|
||||||
|
- Suitable for prototype/early development
|
||||||
|
- Can be refactored later if needed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Modular file structure, bundler setup
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Harder to maintain as codebase grows
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Working well for current scope, monitor for refactoring needs
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Game Design Decisions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Neural Network Theme
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Neural network connectivity as core theme
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Contemporary and relevant to current AI trends
|
||||||
|
- Visually appealing with glowing nodes and connections
|
||||||
|
- Natural fit for puzzle mechanics
|
||||||
|
- Educational value about networks and connectivity
|
||||||
|
- Distinctive in puzzle game market
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Circuit boards, constellation patterns, molecule structures
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Theme might become dated, technical complexity in explanation
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Positive player feedback on theme
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Time-Based Challenges
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Include timer-based pressure in gameplay
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Creates urgency and excitement
|
||||||
|
- Encourages replay for better scores
|
||||||
|
- Natural difficulty progression (decreasing time limits)
|
||||||
|
- Prevents analysis paralysis
|
||||||
|
- Standard in successful puzzle games
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Move-limited puzzles, no time pressure
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: May stress some players, could alienate casual audience
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Balancing seems appropriate, monitor feedback
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Progressive Difficulty Scaling
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Gradual increase in nodes and connections per level
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Maintains player engagement without overwhelming
|
||||||
|
- Natural learning curve
|
||||||
|
- Allows pattern recognition skills to develop
|
||||||
|
- Industry standard for puzzle games
|
||||||
|
- Accommodates different skill levels
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Fixed difficulty, random difficulty spikes
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: May become predictable, skilled players might get bored
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Working well, consider adding difficulty options later
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Visual Design Decisions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Glassmorphism UI Style
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Modern glassmorphism design with blur effects
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Contemporary and visually appealing
|
||||||
|
- Creates depth and sophistication
|
||||||
|
- Works well with neural network theme
|
||||||
|
- Distinctive from traditional game UIs
|
||||||
|
- Trending in modern web design
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Flat design, skeuomorphic, neon cyberpunk
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Performance cost of backdrop-filter, may not age well
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Performance acceptable, positive visual impact
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Color Palette Selection
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Cyan/magenta gradient with neural-themed colors
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- High contrast for accessibility
|
||||||
|
- Futuristic feel appropriate for neural theme
|
||||||
|
- Good visibility on various screen types
|
||||||
|
- Distinctive brand identity
|
||||||
|
- Works in both light and dark environments
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Green/blue matrix theme, warm orange/red, monochrome
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: May be too "sci-fi" for some players
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Good accessibility, positive feedback
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Particle Effects Implementation
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: DOM-based particles for connection feedback
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Simpler implementation than Canvas particles
|
||||||
|
- Good performance for small numbers
|
||||||
|
- CSS animations provide smooth effects
|
||||||
|
- Easy to modify and customize
|
||||||
|
- Adequate for current scope
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Canvas-based particles, no particle effects
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Limited scalability, potential DOM pollution
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Good performance, consider Canvas particles for complex effects
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Performance & Technical Decisions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Target Frame Rate Strategy
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: 60fps desktop, 30fps+ mobile targets
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Smooth gameplay experience on primary platforms
|
||||||
|
- Realistic given hardware constraints
|
||||||
|
- Allows for visual effects without compromise
|
||||||
|
- Industry standard for web games
|
||||||
|
- Performance budget management
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Fixed 30fps, adaptive frame rate
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: More complex optimization needed
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Targets achieved on test devices
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Object Pooling Strategy
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Implement object pooling for particles
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Prevents garbage collection hitches
|
||||||
|
- Better memory management
|
||||||
|
- Consistent performance during effects
|
||||||
|
- Standard practice for game development
|
||||||
|
- Scalable for future features
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Create/destroy on demand, pre-allocate fixed arrays
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Additional code complexity
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Smooth performance improvements observed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Cross-Platform Input Handling
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Unified mouse/touch event system
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Single codebase for all platforms
|
||||||
|
- Consistent behavior across devices
|
||||||
|
- Easier maintenance and testing
|
||||||
|
- Future-proof for new input methods
|
||||||
|
- Industry best practice
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Separate mouse/touch handlers, input library
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Some platform-specific optimizations lost
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Working well across all test devices
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Deployment & Distribution Decisions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### GitHub Pages Hosting
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Use GitHub Pages for primary deployment
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Free and reliable hosting
|
||||||
|
- Automatic deployment from repository
|
||||||
|
- Good performance with CDN
|
||||||
|
- Easy domain setup if needed
|
||||||
|
- Integration with development workflow
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Netlify, Vercel, custom hosting
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Limited server-side capabilities
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Working perfectly, fast loading times
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Open Source License
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: MIT License for both game and documentation
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Permissive licensing encourages use
|
||||||
|
- Educational value for other developers
|
||||||
|
- Simple and well-understood terms
|
||||||
|
- Allows commercial adaptation
|
||||||
|
- Standard for web development projects
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: GPL, Apache, proprietary
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: No commercial protection
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Appropriate for project goals
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Development Workflow Decisions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Dual Repository Strategy
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Separate repos for game and Claude Project documentation
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Clean separation of concerns
|
||||||
|
- Game repo focuses on product
|
||||||
|
- Documentation repo demonstrates methodology
|
||||||
|
- Different audiences for each repository
|
||||||
|
- Professional presentation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Single repository, multiple branches
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Additional maintenance overhead
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Clear organization, positive feedback
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Claude Project Integration
|
||||||
|
**Date**: June 13, 2025
|
||||||
|
**Decision**: Use Claude Projects for persistent development context
|
||||||
|
**Rationale**:
|
||||||
|
- Maintains context across sessions
|
||||||
|
- Systematic knowledge accumulation
|
||||||
|
- Consistent development approach
|
||||||
|
- Documented decision making
|
||||||
|
- Efficient AI collaboration
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Alternatives Considered**: Regular chat sessions, external documentation
|
||||||
|
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Learning curve for new methodology
|
||||||
|
**Status**: ✅ Significant productivity improvements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Future Decision Points
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Audio System Implementation (Pending)
|
||||||
|
**Decision Needed**: Web Audio API vs HTML5 Audio elements
|
||||||
|
**Considerations**: Performance, browser compatibility, feature requirements
|
||||||
|
**Timeline**: Phase 1 development
|
||||||
|
**Research Status**: Investigating options
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Save System Architecture (Pending)
|
||||||
|
**Decision Needed**: LocalStorage vs IndexedDB vs Cloud storage
|
||||||
|
**Considerations**: Data size, offline capability, sync requirements
|
||||||
|
**Timeline**: Phase 1 development
|
||||||
|
**Research Status**: LocalStorage preferred for MVP
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Framework Migration (Future)
|
||||||
|
**Decision Needed**: When to migrate from vanilla JS to framework
|
||||||
|
**Considerations**: Code complexity, team size, maintenance burden
|
||||||
|
**Timeline**: If codebase exceeds 2000 lines or team grows
|
||||||
|
**Research Status**: Monitor codebase growth
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Mobile App Distribution (Future)
|
||||||
|
**Decision Needed**: PWA vs Native app stores vs Hybrid approach
|
||||||
|
**Considerations**: Distribution channels, native features, development cost
|
||||||
|
**Timeline**: Phase 3 development
|
||||||
|
**Research Status**: PWA seems most appropriate
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Decision Review Process
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Monthly Review
|
||||||
|
- Assess whether past decisions are still valid
|
||||||
|
- Identify new decision points from development experience
|
||||||
|
- Update trade-off assessments based on real usage
|
||||||
|
- Plan upcoming decisions and research needed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Decision Reversal Protocol
|
||||||
|
1. Document why original decision no longer optimal
|
||||||
|
2. Research alternatives with current constraints
|
||||||
|
3. Assess migration cost and timeline
|
||||||
|
4. Make new decision with full context
|
||||||
|
5. Update this log with reversal rationale
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Success Metrics for Decisions
|
||||||
|
- **Technical**: Performance targets met, no major refactoring needed
|
||||||
|
- **Process**: Development velocity maintained or improved
|
||||||
|
- **User**: Positive feedback, engagement metrics healthy
|
||||||
|
- **Business**: Goals achieved within time/resource constraints
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**This log should be updated after every major decision. Regular review helps ensure decisions remain optimal as the project evolves.**
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user