276 lines
8.6 KiB
Markdown
276 lines
8.6 KiB
Markdown
# Development Decision History - Neural Nexus
|
|
|
|
This document tracks all major development decisions made during the project lifecycle, providing context for future reference and team knowledge transfer.
|
|
|
|
## Decision Log Format
|
|
|
|
Each entry includes:
|
|
- **Date**: When the decision was made
|
|
- **Context**: Situation that required the decision
|
|
- **Decision**: What was chosen
|
|
- **Rationale**: Why this choice was made
|
|
- **Alternatives**: Other options considered
|
|
- **Impact**: Effects on development and architecture
|
|
- **Status**: Current, Modified, or Superseded
|
|
|
|
## June 2025 Decisions
|
|
|
|
### Decision 001: Single-File Game Architecture
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Choosing development approach for HTML5 game
|
|
**Decision:** Build complete game in single index.html file
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Simplifies deployment (no build process)
|
|
- Easier for contributors to understand
|
|
- Immediate testing and iteration
|
|
- Perfect for GitHub Pages hosting
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- Multi-file structure with build process
|
|
- Framework-based architecture (React, Vue)
|
|
- Game engine approach (Phaser.js)
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Enables rapid prototyping and simple deployment
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Decision 002: Vanilla JavaScript Over Frameworks
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Technology stack selection for game engine
|
|
**Decision:** Use vanilla ES6+ JavaScript without external frameworks
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Maximum performance control
|
|
- No external dependencies to manage
|
|
- Smaller bundle size
|
|
- Educational value for learning web technologies
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- React for component structure
|
|
- Vue.js for simpler framework approach
|
|
- Game-specific frameworks like Phaser
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Requires more manual implementation but provides full control
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Decision 003: Canvas 2D for Game Rendering
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Graphics rendering technology choice
|
|
**Decision:** HTML5 Canvas 2D API for all game graphics
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Excellent performance for 2D graphics
|
|
- Full control over rendering pipeline
|
|
- Wide browser compatibility
|
|
- Sufficient features for puzzle game needs
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- WebGL for hardware acceleration
|
|
- DOM manipulation for game elements
|
|
- SVG for vector graphics
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Enables 60fps performance with fine-grained control
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Decision 004: Glassmorphism UI Design
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Visual design direction for user interface
|
|
**Decision:** Modern glassmorphism design with blur effects
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Contemporary, premium appearance
|
|
- Fits neural network technological theme
|
|
- Creates visual depth without overwhelming gameplay
|
|
- Differentiates from basic web games
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- Flat material design
|
|
- Skeuomorphic interface
|
|
- Minimalist approach
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Defines entire visual language and CSS architecture
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Decision 005: Progressive Difficulty Algorithm
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Game balance and player engagement strategy
|
|
**Decision:** Algorithmic difficulty scaling based on level progression
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Maintains challenge as players improve
|
|
- Prevents frustration through gradual increase
|
|
- Allows fine-tuning based on player data
|
|
- Infinite content generation capability
|
|
|
|
**Implementation:**
|
|
```javascript
|
|
const nodeCount = Math.min(5 + Math.floor(level * 0.7), 12);
|
|
const timeLimit = Math.max(45, 60 - Math.floor(level / 3) * 2);
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- Fixed difficulty levels
|
|
- Player-selected difficulty
|
|
- Adaptive difficulty based on performance
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Core to long-term player engagement and retention
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Decision 006: Mobile-First Responsive Design
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Cross-platform compatibility requirements
|
|
**Decision:** Design primarily for mobile, enhance for desktop
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Puzzle games popular on mobile devices
|
|
- Touch interaction naturally translates to mouse
|
|
- Ensures excellent mobile experience
|
|
- Larger touch targets benefit accessibility
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Approach:**
|
|
- Base styles for mobile (320px+)
|
|
- Progressive enhancement for larger screens
|
|
- Touch target minimum 44px
|
|
- Gesture-based interactions
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- Desktop-first with mobile adaptation
|
|
- Separate mobile and desktop versions
|
|
- Mobile-only approach
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Influences all UI design and interaction patterns
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Decision 007: GitHub-Based Dual Repository Structure
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Project organization and documentation strategy
|
|
**Decision:** Separate repositories for game code and Claude Project methodology
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Clean separation of concerns
|
|
- Game repository showcases development skills
|
|
- Claude Project repository demonstrates systematic approach
|
|
- Both serve as templates for future projects
|
|
|
|
**Repository Structure:**
|
|
- `neural-nexus-game`: Game code and development documentation
|
|
- `neural-nexus-claude-project`: Claude Project workflow and methodology
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- Single repository with folders
|
|
- Multiple repositories for different aspects
|
|
- Documentation-only repository
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Creates reusable development methodology and clean portfolio pieces
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Decision 008: Session-Based Development Workflow
|
|
**Date:** June 13, 2025
|
|
**Context:** Claude Project context management and knowledge retention
|
|
**Decision:** Structured session start/end workflow with mandatory consolidation
|
|
**Rationale:**
|
|
- Prevents context loss between sessions
|
|
- Captures decisions and rationale systematically
|
|
- Builds knowledge base incrementally
|
|
- Maintains development momentum
|
|
|
|
**Workflow Components:**
|
|
- Session start prompt for context setting
|
|
- Mandatory session end consolidation
|
|
- Weekly progress reviews
|
|
- Stage transition assessments
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives Considered:**
|
|
- Ad-hoc development without structure
|
|
- Daily summary instead of session-based
|
|
- Automated context capture
|
|
|
|
**Impact:** Ensures consistent progress and knowledge retention
|
|
**Status:** Current
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision Review Process
|
|
|
|
### Monthly Reviews
|
|
- Assess whether decisions are achieving intended goals
|
|
- Identify decisions that may need modification
|
|
- Document lessons learned from implementation
|
|
- Plan updates based on new information or changing requirements
|
|
|
|
### Decision Modification Process
|
|
1. Document current status and why change is needed
|
|
2. Analyze impact on existing implementation
|
|
3. Consider alternatives within current constraints
|
|
4. Plan implementation strategy
|
|
5. Update related documentation
|
|
6. Communicate changes to team/stakeholders
|
|
|
|
### Decision Success Metrics
|
|
- **Technical Decisions**: Performance targets, maintainability, scalability
|
|
- **Design Decisions**: User satisfaction, engagement metrics, accessibility
|
|
- **Process Decisions**: Development velocity, knowledge retention, team efficiency
|
|
|
|
## Future Decisions to Track
|
|
|
|
### Upcoming Decision Points
|
|
- Audio system implementation approach
|
|
- Save game data structure and storage method
|
|
- Tutorial system design and implementation
|
|
- Achievement system architecture
|
|
- Level editor technical approach
|
|
|
|
### Decision Templates
|
|
|
|
#### Technical Decision Template
|
|
```markdown
|
|
### Decision XXX: [Title]
|
|
**Date:** [Date]
|
|
**Context:** [Situation requiring decision]
|
|
**Decision:** [What was chosen]
|
|
**Rationale:** [Why this choice]
|
|
**Alternatives:** [Other options considered]
|
|
**Implementation:** [How it will be built]
|
|
**Impact:** [Effects on project]
|
|
**Success Metrics:** [How to measure success]
|
|
**Status:** [Current/Modified/Superseded]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### Design Decision Template
|
|
```markdown
|
|
### Decision XXX: [Title]
|
|
**Date:** [Date]
|
|
**Context:** [Design challenge or requirement]
|
|
**Decision:** [Design direction chosen]
|
|
**User Impact:** [How this affects player experience]
|
|
**Rationale:** [Why this approach]
|
|
**Design Alternatives:** [Other approaches considered]
|
|
**Implementation:** [How to achieve this design]
|
|
**Success Metrics:** [User satisfaction, engagement measures]
|
|
**Status:** [Current/Modified/Superseded]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Knowledge Extraction
|
|
|
|
### Patterns for Future Projects
|
|
- Single-file architecture works well for simple games
|
|
- Vanilla JavaScript provides excellent performance control
|
|
- Mobile-first design ensures broad compatibility
|
|
- Structured development workflow prevents context loss
|
|
- Documentation-driven development improves long-term maintenance
|
|
|
|
### Anti-Patterns Identified
|
|
- Premature optimization before core mechanics proven
|
|
- Complex architecture before understanding requirements
|
|
- Neglecting mobile experience in favor of desktop polish
|
|
- Inconsistent development practices leading to context loss
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: June 2025
|
|
Next Review: July 2025 (Monthly decision review) |