Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been working for a while now but because of my earlier habits i never worked systematically.
I have never created a workflow chart for my software as how the software will work and instead of that i started working directly which in turn leads to many problems later.
Below is a small situation i currently need help with:-
NOTE:I have already created a software which does the following and i don't need any code for it, i just want to know how a workflow chart is created for such a situation.
1) Party List : This is where i would like to store all of the information of my customer.
2) Sales : Here i will sell my products to the customer.
There are 2 cases here, whenever the customer arrives we have an option to
either save it in the party list and select it from the list in the sales form
or type it manually and then save it
Now comes the checking part:-
If an entry was saved in Sales when the checkbox was ticked and the user selected a party, lets say "Akhmed" has been saved AND the user tries to delete the record of "Akhmed" from the Party List form then the software shouldn't allow it to do so as the entry of "Akhmed" already exist in Sales.
Can anyone show me how a workflow chart is created for such a situation?
EDIT
Here is a sample workflow i have made after reading some articles, please point out any improvements that can be made to it or is it completely wrong or anything.
First of all, great question. I wish all software engineers thought first before jumping to writing a code. Especially when it's about anything more serious than a couple of lines for fun.
I think your software flow can be expressed as Activity diagram. An example of activity diagram is expressed on this picture: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/uml/images/uml_activity_diagram.jpg
Basically, activity diagram is a combination of steps and transitions (arrows) connecting them. Step can be just something that happens in the flow, or it can be a logical operator (decision) which branches the flow execution into different directions.
If you need to also emphasize who needs to execute the step, besides just showing what the steps are, you can add swimlanes (horizontal or vertical columns showing the actor names) to the activity diagram. That's where it turns into a Flow Chart diagram. e.g. on this image you can see horizontal swimplanes explaining who does the step execution http://static1.creately.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Support-Process-Flowchart-Template-1024x613.png
Note that terminology can differ from person to person, but these are the names for these 2 kinds of diagrams I have mostly heard and used myself.
There are other kinds of diagrams too, but I think your specific case will be covered with the ones mentioned above. Although... use case diagram can be something you may be interested in, but that does not depict steps. That only will mention actors and what kind of actions they can do with your system. e.g. https://sourcemaking.com/files/sm/images/uml/img_32.jpg
You didn't ask for tools, but I usually prefer to use tools that are rigor (rather than loose like Visio), so I would recommend to use WhiteStarUML. It's free and does a great job. But as I said, it's strictly UML-based, so will require some familiarity with UML.
Finally, about your attached picture:
What you showed looks like an activity diagram with some illegal components on it (illegal from UML specification standpoint). Is it good or bad? - depends. If it's supposed to be a rigor UML diagram then it's bad. If it's just a sketch of an idea - not bad.
Your diagram mentions database sign (called "DB") and arrows connecting to it. That's illegal on an activity diagram UML. Instead, you can have a step which says "Data gets saved to Database", and remove the "DB". Also, you have a single step which says both "Party" and "Sales" on it - that's not a legal UML. I think you tried to express that there are 2 flows. In that case, just have 2 different activity diagrams instead of one.
Your question is quite broad but I'll give it a shot.
I think you want to reconsider your approach. I would suggest reading up on UML sequence diagrams. They are a kind of diagram that provides a way to represent how requests are made within code. UML, in general, can also be used to make class diagrams and other useful flow-like charts for representing code. Many tools, such as visual-paradigm, allow you to build UML diagrams (ex. class diagrams)that can be converted directly into code. This can be useful when getting you started on the program. There is a learning curve with using these tools as different kinds of arrows mean different things, but they can be very powerful. they can also be used to take existing code and convert it to a diagram, which is great when trying to explain how your program works.
here are some other links that might be useful:
lucidchart has an example of a pop-up window diagram like the one you described.
draw.io just allows for you to make the diagrams, not convert them to code, but it is an easy to use tool and integrates with google drive and git hub.
stackoverflow has some info on UML too.
If you are looking for a "professional workflow diagram" UML if a fine way to go, there are many ways they can be laid out and they can be quite professional, I learned about them in school and have used them at work to help plan out the flow of data through our system. There are many more UML tools out there, it might be worth looking into a tutorial to find what's best for you.
You seem to be on the right track, I have never added a database to my flow-charts but it is up to you on how detailed you want to get. You seem to be using the correct symbols!
Here is an awesome, free website that I use. https://www.draw.io/ it was created for making flow charts and other things.
I personally would remove the UI at the beginning of your chart. Try to stay away from the overly technical examples when starting out with flow-charts, hit up YouTube or Google images for some simple, but correct examples.
Good luck friend!
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I currently work in a small business (15-20 employees, 5 programmers) where most projects are custom built CMS and a few web applications products.
Since I started working there, I have worked on many projects, but specifications for each project vary a lot. Sometimes we get a little detail, a Word document telling what the client wants, and what we are suggesting (suggested form fields, a short description of display, etc.). Sometimes almost nothing except "do what you think is the best approach for this project/module/request".
My question to you guys, who might work in different kind of businesses, is: How (huge pile of paper? Word docs? Visios?) and what kind of information do you get from your superiors, managers, teamates when starting a project (plenty of analysis, drawings, etc.)? How much detail do you get on this?
Hope my question is clear enough, thank you.
Specs..that's kind of funny...how about never :(.
Seriously a lot of companies assume specs aren't needed, its absolutely unacceptable but this is how it is in a LOT of companies. They assume a one liner and the programmer knows what the program should do, the inputs / outputs and so on.
Unfortunately in my case I have to actually help write the specs..and Im the programmer :(.
I mostly get a lot of verbal direction and I use a voice recorder to record the conversation and transcribe it when I am done. I write my own specs from my customers' words.
Then, as a good consultant should, I take the writeup back to the customer and verify it, and get a signature and build it, and they live happily every after! (no they dont, they change their mind a 100 times)
It can vary depending on what group the work falls under:
Support request - If the change will take a short period of time and is fixing something broken, there is this group. This could be as simple as, "Add Bob to the list of authorized users for that ancient form" where the form is something written years ago and aside from adding and removing users, it isn't touched for fear of breaking things.
Service Advisory Committee request - Items that are up to a few days are in this group as these are kind of like mini-projects as the request may be to create a new form or portal for a group. This could be upgrading some 3rd party software where we have some customizations that make the upgrade not necessarily a simple thing for Operations to do.
Project - In this case there are usually a few Word documents and/or e-mail threads that help nail down requirements in terms of scope, budget, and time. These can take months though there is something to be said for having a prototype to change rather than creating the initial prototype to tell if requirements are really met or not. Course my current project is over a year old, still has a few more months to the timeline and already has a successor coming after it is done,i.e. there is a Phase II to go after Phase I.
Uber project - These merit their own group of documentation and are the million dollar, multiple company projects that usually try to document everything up front rarely works out well here. Thus, there is some adoptioon of agile for these but there are still some growing pains to go through as how we use agile matures. Think installing a dozen modules of some off-the-shelf software that requires both internal and external developers to customize the suite for our specific needs as the software is supposed to be very robust, flexible and help save lots of time and money on how people otherwise do their jobs generally. Think ERP or CRM for a couple of examples here.
We are a 16-person company that creates and supports customized software for small retail shop owners.
The projects we get fall into three general categories (as related to specs):
"Here, automate this form." A sales person explains that our customer only wants this form to appear where they can fill it out and print it to make it look professional to their customer. Our specs is a single piece of paper that looks something like an order form or report. This is always false; they want pop-up lookups, automatic updating from other sources, and "while you're at it" add-ons that more than double the time. These, we've learned to just live in the moment and let the project take its course. By the time we're done, the program doesn't look anything like their original form.
Small changes. Like a simple e-mail explaining that the background color is stale, or a request to sort a report by a different column. These, we just do as time allows.
Big company integrations, where we're tasked with making our software work with some big outfit like Intuit (QuickBook) or FedEx (shipping rates). These often have well thought out documentation and sample code. We get 100's of pages in word documents or pdfs. The problem with these is when their specs are wrong. We find out about inaccuracies when we try to test or certify our integration. In these instances, we usually take longer in certification than we did to originally develop the processes.
In all cases, the real trouble is when a sales person promises a solution to the customer before even asking a programmer what it would take. As recently as 2 weeks ago, a sales person got into real trouble and had to issue a refund (that person is no longer with the company).
None - at least not from management.
Instead, as a developer (and particularly one leading a software project right now), I'm expected to contact my users/customers/etc and work directly with them to come up with our specifications and requirements. The documentation I do request from my team is only what will be useful to the team. I am lucky in that management rarely requests a document that doesn't make sense or won't provide some use to our project.
I currently have a half-dozen or so specs each 60-80 pages. One of them is 80 pages with no table of contents. Good times.
Our Product Managers and senior engineers prepare three planning docs for our data management software projects.
High-level requirements: 1-to-3 sentence descriptions of hardware/software supported or specific feature for this project. (10-15 pages of Excel-like grids)
Technical details: Engineering implementation of each high-level requirements. Up to a page for each, depending on amount of detail. (30-40 pages of filled-in feature details)
Business agreement: Summary of 1 & 2 with engineering schedule and Product Mgmt's market analysis. Everyone signs off on this. (5 pages analysis, 20 technical)
I haven't seen work flows or other Visio-like details in our specs. The prioritized requirements and schedule prove critical, so we understand when to lop things off to save development and testing time.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I ask about the pattern, not framework. This is kind of follow-up to a question on UI auto-generation.
Do you believe in the concept of UI auto-generation from metadata?
What kind of problems can be approached this way?
The question arose when I've created a small library to support my student projects, which generates interactive CLI in runtime based on object's metadata. And I think CLI it generates is quite decent.
On the other extreme is the Naked Objects Framework, which is rather universal, but UI it generates is horrible, IMO.
It's clear, every problem is specific and needs specific UI, but maybe there are several classes of problems where auto-generation is acceptable?
Yes, I believe the concept of metadata-based auto-generated applications is very sound - mainly because it drastically reduces development time and improves code quality by reducing the massive redundancy you have in most applications where each domain data field is represented in the database, in the model, in the UI, and often also several times in various mapping layers.
I think the future is auto-generated apps that can be modified wherever necessary. Currently, this is AFAIK not really possible; for example, Rails only allows you to fully customize the UI when you use static scaffolding, which basically means code generation, i.e. many further changes in the domain model are then not automatically represented in the UI because the duplication has happened when the code was generated.
I believe the first framework that manages to combine complete auto-generation with complete modifiability afterwards will become the de-facto development standard to a previously unknown degree. Though most likely we'll get there in small steps so that there will not be such a single dominating framework.
Take a look at JMatter, which is a rather better-looking implementation of Naked Objects.
http://www.jmatter.org
There is also Chris Muller's work on MAUI, and Lukas Renggli's work on Magritte (both Squeak /Smalltalk)
We have lots of generated UI in the configuration part of our apps. All those lists that are around forever and changed once in a blue moon by a system administrator.
I find that most applications with a database back-end tend to have a bad design from an OO and NO perspective, as already shown in the NO book by Pawson and Matthews.
Re: qn #1 ... Do you believe in the concept of UI auto-generation from metadata? ... I'm definitely going to answer 'yes' to your first question, being one of the committers to the Naked Objects (Java) framework and writing a book on DDD + NO.
The question mentions metadata. I think this is key to NO being able to succeed. In the latest version (which will be going beta in Feb) the metamodel has been opened up so that it is very extensible, either so you can write your domain model following your own programming conventions/annotations, or, potentially so that more sophisticated viewers can look for their own metadata to provide more sophisticated views. (For example, consider that if an object implemented a Location interface then it is displayed in a google maps).
Regarding qn #2 ... what kind of problems can be approached this way ... we've always said that NO is more suitable for "sovereign applications" (transactional, operational systems ones used internally within an organization) to "transient applications" (like an airport kiosk, say). An NO GUI does require that the user is familiar with the domain, otherwise they won't know what they are looking at.
What's missing still is sophisticated viewers, of course. You are right about the NO GUI, it is definitely low fidelity (though the .NET version is a big improvement, see recent infoq.com article). On the Java side there is a sister project called scimpi.org that has a lot of promise though... it provides a basic web GUI for free but lets you hand-craft web pages as necessary and incrementally. I'm also working on an Eclipse RCP GUI that'll work similarly.
The other thing to add to this though is that the NO approach has value (I believe) even if you choose to write a custom GUI and/or presentation layer. That is, you can use it as a design tool for building a very solid pojo domain layer, and then skin it as you will. Trouble is that NO was never originally sold in those terms, so most will see the NO pattern as an all-or-nothing affair.
Dan
One way to look at this is to consider the difference between the user interface you get from something like Toad or MySQL Browser, where the user interface is directly constructed from the tables and their associated meta data, and the user interface that a skilled designer would develop for the actual application. IF there not too disimilar then it should be fairly low hanging fruit for an auto-generation framework.
As you say there are classes of problems which will work quite well with this kind of auto generation and some which wouldn't. To my mind the key things are how well the implementation model (or portion thereof) which you are exposing in the user interface maps to the conceptual model of the user. Secondly how well can the behavior of the application can be expressed through a limited set of user interface components (assuming this is a general purpose UI generation framework).
This article "Universal Model of a User Interface" may be of interest .
I think the idea of automatically generated UIs has a lot of potential especially for your average form-and-table layout database user interface. However, even there a human needs to be in the loop, having the ability to override the output without it being overwritten with the next regeneration.
I suspect automatically generated UIs would be more successful today if interaction designers were more involved in developing the generation algorithms. My impression is that historically the creators of these systems don’t know what kinds of UI-related metadata to include or how to use it. Specifying labels, value ranges, formats, and orders for fields is a start, but more high level information is needed. Sufficient modeling of the tasks and user roles in particular tends to be lacking, along with some basic style-guide-level principles for UI.
Oracle’s Designer 2000, for example, was on the right track in including not only the entities and relations in the model, but also the tasks in the form of a functional hierarchy. Then they blew it by misapplying this metadata (e.g., assuming that depth is always preferred to breadth) and including fundamental flaws when generating the UI (e.g., only one primary window can be opened at a time). The result was IUs that were not even consistent with Oracle’s own Applications User Interface Standards.
Getting a basic UI up quickly that lets the customer try out the system and create test data must be of value. Naked Objects frameworks can help for the “boot strapping” even if you have to have replace it with “hand crafted” UI before you ship.
In most system I have worked on, there have been lots of simple housekeeping tables. All these tables need a UI to edit and view them etc. There is also great value in these simple editors being consistent. Here a naked Objects framework could save a lot of time, even if the main “day to day” UI is “hand crafted”
I have seen a couple of failed projects (cases where I was brought in as a rather expensive consultant to help architect the replacement) which used the "naked objects" approach (not the framework, AFAIK) - all with simply atrocious UIs, and worked replacing a lot of the UI on one project which, in its original incarnation, had a similar approach (the entire application was a tree of objects accessed through context menus and property sheets - this was NetBeans 2.0 circa 1998 - IDE as a giant hierarchical JavaBean).
The bottom line is, your users don't care about your architecture, they care about getting what they need to do done in the most comprehensible-to-mere-mortals set of interactions you can come up with. If that happens to align with your architecture, you are having a lucky day - but it really is serendipity. Trying to force users to care (or even know) about your architecture is a recipe for software nobody wants to use.
Code generally needs to be designed around two not-always-compatible goals:
Maintainability - people who didn't write the code can understand the code
Stability and performance - i.e. the activities the code asks the computer to physically do are both possible, and can be completed within a reasonable time frame
The abstractions and code structures that it makes sense to create to meet those two goals very, very rarely map exactly to user interface elements of any sort. Sometimes you can get away with it - barely - if your audience is technical. But even there, you are likely to please more users with at least a "presentation layer" adapter layer on top of the architecture that makes sense for programmers and machines.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I would like to know your experience when you need to take over somebody else's software project - more so when the original software developer has already resigned.
The most success that we've had with that is to "wiki" everything. During the notice period ask the leaving developer to help you document everything in the team/company wiki and see if you can do code reviews with him/her and add comments to the code while doing the reviews that explain sections. Best for the "taking over" developer to write the comments in the code under the supervision of the leaver.
Cases where original devs leaved before handing over the project are always the most interesting: you're stuck with a codebase in an unknown state. What I always find intriguing is how the new devs often do their utmost best to comment on how badly designed the code is: they forget about the constraints the old devs might have been under, the shortcuts they might have been forced to make. The saying is always Old dev == bad dev. What do you people think:
I would even call this out as an official bad practice: bad-mouthing the ones who have been before us.
I try to take as much a pragmatic approach as possible: learn the codebase, wander around a bit. Try to understand the relation between requirements and code, even is there is no clear initial relationship at all. There will always be the "aha moment" when you realise why they did something was done this way or that. If you're still convinced something is implemented the wrong way, do your refactorings if possible. And isolate the pieces of code you cannot change: unit test them by using a mocking framework.
Hail to the maintenance developer.
I once joined a team which has been handed over a pile of steaming crap from outsourcing. The original project - a multimedia content manager based on Java, Struts, Hibernate|Oracle - was well structured (it seems like it was the work of a couple of people, pair programming, wise use of design patterns, some unit testing). Then someone else inherited the project and endlessly copy-pasted features, loosened the business rules, patched, branched until it became a huge spaghetti monster with fine crafted piece of codes like:
List<Stuff> stuff = null;
if (LOG.isDebugEnabled())
{
stuff = findStuff();
LOG.debug("Yeah, I'm a smart guy!");
for (Stuff stu : stuff)
{
LOG.debug("I've got this stuff: " + stu);
}
}
methodThatUsesStuff(stuff);
hidden amongst the other brilliant ingenuity.
I tamed the beast via patient refactoring (extracting methods and classes more of the times), commenting the code from time to time, reorganizing everything till the codebase shrunk by 30%, getting more and more manageable over time.
I had to take over someone else’s code of different degrees of quality on several occasions. Hence the tips:
Make effort to take structured notes of any piece of significant information from minute one: names of stakeholders, business rules, code and document locations etc. It is best to dedicate a fresh spiral notebook, so you could tear pages out if you had to.
Make use of one of the better free indexing and desktop search tools available on the market (Google Desktop Search, MS Windows Search will do). Add all document, e-mail, code locations to it.
Before developing anything do document analysis: find everything you can get you hands on electronically on network and printed out docs, make effort of simply reading it. There is amazingly much of useful information even within unfinished drafts.
Mind map the code, architecture etc as you go.
With lesser documented and maintained systems you inevitably will have moments of despair that are likely to push you into procrastination mode. Especially during your first days or week when amount of new information your mind has to digest is overwhelming. At these times it is nice to have someone to remind you (or just do it yourself) to take it easy, concentrate on important things first and revert to making smaller steps in trying to gain understanding instead of trying to leap forward.
Keep taking notes, making diagrams, drawing rich pictures, mind mapping. It really helps to digest the copious amounts of new information, mostly disorganised.
Hei, good luck!
We actually have a specified set of "Deliverables" that has to be present for us to take over a project.
If we have the chance we try to push in one of our folks within the group developing the project at first. That way we get some firsthand knowledgde before our group takes over the code. (in the line of what #Guy wrote)
That being said, the most important part for me would be:
Some kind og highlevel overview(drawing?) of what the code do.
Easy access to ask questions of the people who actually wrote the code
This for me is alpha omega when taking over code and projects
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm building Desktop Software for over 10 years now, mostly it's simple Data-Input Software. My problem is, it's always looking the same: A Treeview on the Left and a lot of Text/Data Fields to the right, depending on the type of data currently is worked on. Are there any fresh ideas how such software nowadays should look like?
For further clarification:
It's very hierarchical data, mostly for electronic devices. There are elements of data which provide static settings for the device and there are parts which describe some sort of 'Program' for the device. There are a lot (more than 30) of different input masks. Of course i use combo boxes and Up/Down Entry Fields.
Having all of your software look the same thing is a good thing. One of the best ways to make it easy for people to use your software is to make it look exactly the same as other software your users already know how to use.
There are basically two common strategies for how to handle entry of a lot of data. The first is to have lots of data entry fields on one page. The next is to have only a few data entry fields but a lot of pages in a sort of wizard-style interface. Expert users find the latter much slower to use, as do users who are entering data over and over again. However, the wizard style interface is less confusing for newer users since it offers fewer elements at once and tends to provide more detail on them.
I do suggest replacing as many text fields as possible with auto-complete-based combo-boxes. This allows users to enter data exactly the same as with text-boxes, but also allows users to save typing by hitting the down key to scroll through choices after typing part of the data in.
Providing more detail on what data is being entered would probably yield more specific answers.
I'd also answer with a question, which is to ask what your motivation for considering a change is? Like the other posters, I'd agree that there is some value in consistency, but there's also a strong value in not ignoring niggles-in-the-back-of-the-mind feelings you have. Maybe you have a sense that your users aren't as productive as you'd like them to be, or you've heard feedback to that effect from your customers, or you're just looking to add some innovation for your own interest. Scratching itches is a good trait in a developer, in my view.
One thing I'd advocate would be a detailed user study. How much do you know about what your users do with the interfaces you create? Do you know the key tasks, the overall workflow? Would you know if one task regularly consumed 60% of your users' time, or if there was a task that was only performed once a month? Getting a good sense of what the users actually do (and not what they say they do) is a great place to start thinking about what changes might be worthwhile, especially if you can refactor the task to get a qualitatively different user experience.
A couple of specific alternative designs you might like to include in re-visioning the UI might be be facet browsing (works well for searching and exploring in hierarchies), or building a database of defaults / past responses so that text boxes can use predictive completion. However, I think my starting point would be the user study.
Ian
If it works...
Depending on what you've got happening with the data (that is, is it hierarchical, or fairly flat), you might want to try a tab-based metaphor, or perhaps the "Outlook-style", with a sidebar showing the sections of an application. One other notion I've played with lately is the "Object desktop" that I first saw proposed by Scott Ambler (Building Object Applications That Work). In this, you can display collections of items, or the user can "peel off" individual records for easy access.
Your information is not enough to really suggest you an interface alternative. However, may I answer your question with a question? Why do you think you have to change it? Has your customer complained? If not, it looks like your customer is happy with the way the software works right now, thus I wouldn't change it. If your customer complains about it, he'll most likely not just say "It's bad", he will say "Why can't it look like ..." and this will give you an idea how to change it.
I once had to re-design a very outdated goods management system. The old one was written for a now dead database system, still running in MS-DOS. The customer suggested I should create a prototype how this re-implementation might look like and then he'll decide if I get that job or not. I replaced the old, dead database with a modern MySQL database, I replaced the problematic shared peer access with a client server approach and I chose to rewrite the UI in Java, since different OSes were used and this had the smallest porting costs. So far the concept seemed good, the customer liked it. However, when he asked his employees what they think about it, they asked "So far it's great, but we have one question: Why doesn't it look like the old one?". Actually, it turned out that even with all the modern technologies, they wanted the interface to exactly look and being operated like the old one. So I had to re-build a 1986 usability nightmare MS-DOS UI in Java, because no other UI was accepted.
For me it is more about a clean, usable, logical design than anything else. If your program makes sense to the user, isn't clunky and works as advertised, then everything else UI related is essentially just like painting the house. I've sometimes rolled out a new version of a program with essentially the same controls that are skinned differently.
There's a reason that you've probably chosen the tree view - because it probably makes really good sense to do so. There are different containers and controls available in the various UI libraries, depending on the language, but I tend to stick with the familiar because the user probably gets how a tree control works and how a combobox works.
A user interface needs to be usable, just don't do the misstake to change to something working to something fancy-schmancy just because it looks better (been down that road)...
Make sure that added
widgets/controls really add a business value
Make sure that the added
widgets/controls do not mess up your
architecture (too much) and makes
the application harder to
manage/maintain
Try to keep platform standards on
how to do things (for example the Vista ux guidelines)
:)
//W
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I've seen different program managers write specs in different format. Almost every one has had his/her own style of writing a spec.
On one hand are those wordy documents which given to a programmer are likely to cause him/her missing a few things. I personally dread the word documents spec...I think its because of my reading style...I am always speed reading things which I think will cause me to miss out on key points.
On the other hand, I have seen this innovative specs written in Excel by one of our clients. The way he used to write the spec was kind of create a mock application in Excel and use some VBA to mock it. He would do things like on button click where should the form go or what action should it perform (in comments).
On data form, he would display a form in cells and on each data entry cell he would comment on what valid values are, what validation should it perform etc.
I think that using this technique, it was less likely to miss out on things that needed to be done. Also, it was much easier to unit test it for the developer. The tester too had a better understanding of the system as it 'performed' before actually being written.
Visio is another tool to do screen design but I still think Excel has a better edge over it considering its VBA support and its functions.
Do you think this should become a more popular way of writing spec? I know it involves a bit of extra work on part of project manager(or whoever is writing the spec) but the payoff is huge...I myself could see a lot of productivity gain from using it. And if there are any better formats of specs that would actually help programmer.
Joel on Software is particularly good at these and has some good articles about the subject...
A specific case: the write-up and the spec.
Two approaches have worked well for me.
One is the "working prototype" which you sort of described in your question. In my experience, the company contracted a user interface expert to create fully functional HTML mocks. The data on the page was static, but it allowed for developers and management to see and play with a "functional" version of the site. All that was left to do was replace the static data on the pages with dynamic content - this prototype was our spec for the initial version of our product. The designer even included detailed explanation of some subtle behavior in popup dialogs that would appear when hovering over mock links. It worked well for our team.
On a subsequent project, we didn't have the luxury of the UI expert, but we used similar approach. We used a wiki to mock a version of the site. We created links between the functional aspects of the system and documented each piece of functionality in detail. Each piece of functionality could, in turn, link to detailed design and architecture decisions. We also used to wiki to hold our to list feature list for each release (which became our release notes). These documents linked back to the detailed feature page. The wiki became a living document - describing our releases and evolution of our system in great detail. It was an invaluable resource.
I prefer the wiki to the working prototype because it's more easily extensible - growing and becoming more valuable as your system evolves.
I think you may have a look about Test-Driven Requirements, which is a technique to make executable specifications.
There are some great tools like FIT, Fitnesse, GreenPepper or Concordion for that purpose.
One of the Microsoft Press books has excellent examples of various documents, including an SRS (which I think is what you are talking about). It might be one of the requirements books by Weigert (I think that's his name, I'm blanking on it right now). I've seen US government organizations use that as a template, and from my three work experiences with the government, they like to make their own whereever they can, so if they are reusing it, it must be good.
Also - a spec should contain NO CODE, in my opinion. It should focus on what the system must do, should do, and can not do using text and diagrams.