🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1189@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes:
>
>Therefore   it  is  time  someone   addressed  the  issue   of how  to
>quantitatively    specify    nebulous  terms   like "user   friendly",
>"maintainable", "extendible", etc.  In  a requirements document, these
>terms have no meaning aside from the warm and  fuzzy connotations.  To
>quote Star Trek: The Next   Generation ("Samaritan Snare"), the  space
>moron stated : "We look for things: things  to make us go."  Sure, but
>quantify it. 
>
>How   does  one  specify  a  requirement   for "user  friendliness" or
>"well-written"? 


I'm not sure anyone will ever QUANTIFY user-friendliness in a way that would
help me design better systems.  But Paul Heckel (formerly of PARC)
SPECIFIED the requirement 30 useful ways in _The Elements of Friendly
Software Design_ (Warner Books, 1984).  His point is that software 
designers who think like engineers are doomed to fail, as was Thomas Edison
when he tried to make movies.  Engineers develop the medium; writers and 
artists  use it to communicate effectively!

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bander, Tidewater Consultants, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA
    
                                          Internet:  bander@cs.odu.edu
                                          Ma Bell:   (804) 497-8951
                                          USnail:    160 Newtown Rd. #415
                                                     Va. Beach, VA 23462

"It's not the things we don't know that get us into trouble; 
it's the things we do know that ain't so."
                                                 --Will Rogers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:  All my mistaken opinions are my own.