Add ? (question mark) card about planning-game HOT 3 OPEN

I wonder what would be primary difference between ? card and infinity card. Both of them would carry a meaning of unhelpful value. I'm personally used to using infinity as don't know card.

from planning-game.

To me they are different (but can be conflated for simplicity, yes):

e.g.
? - "I have no idea"
∞ - "this is effectively impossible" / "will never get done"

from planning-game.

sure I agree there might be cases where it would be easy to distinguish which one of the two is the right one but I think there also can be ambiguous cases where these two would sort of blur together. Having multiple meaningless values sort of always reminds me of JS's null/undefined which makes me tend to think that it's generally safer not to introduce more of them as allowing for multitude of meaningless values leads to unnecessary confusion. That's why I'm leaning towards opinion that infinity is the right right thing to keep. It doesn't say what makes the difficulty infinite - if it's lack of understanding or if the requirement is logically unsound or technically unfeasible. In a way these are likely an instance of lack of understanding somewhere.

There is also another thing to consider which is layout of cards based on number of cards. At the moment there are 10 cards. Adding just one card would make it 11 which is prime number so it would be impossible to find a nice grid to display cards in. So from design side of things it might make more sense to add say 2 cards and create 4x3 grid instead. But that other card would likely be another meaningless card which would lead to total of 3.

It would certainly be possible to make this part of configuration but it that doesn't really solve the problem with layout. Anyway to be frank I'm not even sure if I'll ever manage to get to implementing that feature myself. In my current team we're not estimating at all so I'm not even currently using this project and while I still plan to maintain the motivation to extend it myself is simply not there at the moment.

All things considered it kind of depends on if you're motivated to come up with reasonable solution. I'm certainly open to discussion options of how to provide at least optional support for this and am willing to discuss the approach but I don't think I'll manage to implement this myself anytime soon.

from planning-game.