10 KiB
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
- Document why original decision no longer optimal
- Research alternatives with current constraints
- Assess migration cost and timeline
- Make new decision with full context
- 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.