WEBSITE DESIGNER SEATTLE—DDD is basically the first attempt to change things and pick up mainstream software architecture to modern times. Before DDD, the mainstream software architecture was essentially built from the ground up using a solid relational model as the foundation and placing business-logic components on top Of that. Business-logic components were mostly vertical components that organized behavior on a per-table basis. Data-transfer objects (DTO) or ad hoc data structures like record sets were used to move data across layers and tiers and up to the presentation layer.

DDD is splitting the monolithic business logic into two smaller and logically distinct pieces — application logic and domain logic. Application logic is the part of the business logic that implements the workflows behind use-cases. Conversely, the domain logic is the part of the business logic that implements business rules that don’t vary according to use-cases. In leading this change of approach, DDD introduced the notion of the domain layer, which is the segment of the architecture where you provide a software model for the business domain. Such a software model doesn’t have to be an object-oriented model. It should be whatever you reckon it to be—including an anemic model, a functional model, or even an event-based model.

Ultimately, what years of DDD really changed in software architecture is the perception that the data model is the foundation for building software. With DDD, this vision started shifting towards using a domain model to serve as the software foundation. Today the trend is moving even more towards using events as the data source and event-based data stores on top of canonical data stores such as relational or document NoSQL data stores.



Despite all the changes we have faced in recent years, we believe that we keep designing code as we used to do back in the 1990s. We develop a good understanding of the system and build a data model that probably works. On top of that, we make what we consider a good enough user interface. Then we go to the customer and find out that we’ve got something wrong. The more we iterate, the more the software project ends up costing us.

To settle the stuff, we have to address what users perceive to be the system is just the user interface they work with. When we can ensure that the UI and subsequent UX are really close to what users expect, the chances of redoing things because we got it wrong are significantly reduced.

To reach out at that point, we must start planning the system in a top-down way, putting the UX and the presentation at the top of our daily business.


When we talk about software, most users’ expectations are met or not met in the screens they use to do the actual job. If you have a mass of passive users, you can seek to build the system’s foundation from the bottom. Whatever model you end up with works for users who have a passive character, but it doesn’t work as well if users expect some specific UI/UX to work with.

If users are willing to accept any UI, you offer them, building a system from the bottom up ends up working nicely enough. However, if users expect a specific UI and are not very forgiving, the endpoints developed out of the model built from the bottom-up might not fit with the connection points set out of the presentation layer approach. This is precisely the conflict that requires a lot of iterative work to be fixed and produces the highest costs and most tremendous annoyance and misunderstandings. It all looks like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Going the other way around, from top to bottom, ensures that the firm points are those that users want to have. Next, whatever back end you build to support those strong UX points won’t diminish the users’ level of satisfaction. Put another way, the entire back end of the system becomes a vast black box underneath the agreed-upon presentation screens and forms.



UXD pushes a top-down design of software architecture. In this scenario, you might find it helpful to employ two distinct architect roles on a project. By saying architect role, Website Development Silverdale is not suggesting you have two different professionals; instead, we’re offering you two distinct sets of skills, which could be found in the same individual. One role is the classic software architect role. The other is the UX architect role.

The software architect conducts interviews to collect requirements and business information, with the declared purpose of building the domain layer of the system. On the other hand, the UX architect conducts interviews to collect usability requirements, with the expressed purpose of making the ideal user experience and the perfect presentation layer.


Seattle web Design builds websites that people love to use. By using our innovative minds, we design engaging websites. Our team at Seattle web design is excellent in web design and development and creates websites that have a polished, snappy feel. Seattle web design is a web design agency focused on branding and web development. Based in Seattle, Washington, we believe in teamwork and customer satisfaction. Our sweet spot is designing and building engaging websites that provide impeccable user experience and increased conversion.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top