Related
We are currently developing for one of our clients in classic interface. A lot of development has been done so far with classic interface and some of tasks are still under development.
There are lot of functionalities, which use Xrm.Page directive too.
Now, our dilemma is, should we move the client to Unified Interface at this stage and validate all the developed features again at new UI.
OR
Should we continue with the classic one, do the GO LIVE for the client at the end of this year.
Could anybody advise on this, any help would be much appreciated.
The UCI is a big change and will break functionality that used to work in classic such as Xrm.Page and DOM level changes, as you say.
Without having full knowlege of the scope of the work I can't offer you answer on this but what I would recommend is to read the official Microsoft paper on the Unified Interface Playbook http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/F/3/AF3D45A7-4F38-41BE-8956-1DF7A4A5AFDB/dynamics365unifiedinterfaceplaybook.pdf
I would recommend taking into account the scale of the change (how much work to remove relience on Xrm.Page and DOM code?), the most important task is to ensure nothing breaks on go live. If you have time do move to UCI with sufficient testing in place then do, as the classic interface will eventually be deprecated and not work - although Microsoft tend to leave lots of time for migration for big features such as these.
I'm working on a very large project and have adopted the hybrid strategy by creating distinct apps for certain job roles and leaving some of other underused and less businsess critical functionality in the old classic interface due to not having sufficient time to test and deploy. This will get migrated once we have sufficient resource to complete and test this.
For users it can be quite a paradigm shift, but can be turned around into a positive once they see and understand the benefits the UCI interface brings and its in use.
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
Hey all. I would like to get some insight on a question that I have been trying to find some information about. If you are the solo developer that is building a project from ground up, how do you manage the project? In the past, I have worked on a few personal projects that have grown into fairly large projects. In almost all of those projects, I have tried to wear the hats of all the roles that would normally be in place during a normal software development project (i.e. Product Owner, developer, architect, tester, etc.). It seems that when I leave the project for some time and come back, it is extremely hard to get back into the rhythm of what I was doing. So with that, I have some questions:
If I know the requirements (at this
current time), do I record them
anyways? If so, how do I go about
doing this, and how do I manage these
requirements? Product backlog,
features list, etc?
If this is the case, are full blown product backlogs or use cases a little overkill?
How does one efficiently appropriate
his/her time to each respective role?
What would be a normal flow of events
that one would follow? Start coding
immediately, write down user
stories/use cases, then go into
OOA/D?
What diagramming/modeling would be sufficient for this level? Domain model, class diagram, etc?
Basically, I was curious how everyone out there in the SO community would go about developing a project from inception to deployment when you are the lone, solo developer. What steps, documentation, and other project related activities are needed to help bring this project from an impractical, hobby project to something more professional? Any help, references, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
The most difficult part, I have found, about developing solo is that it's just tough to keep yourself driving forward. Even if you're doing this to make a living (AKA, running your own software business), unless you have pressing needs (AKA, you're going to starve if you don't make money) it can be difficult to sit down and just code.
From your perspective, I would recommend following good software practices where it makes sense to. For example, if I were a solo software developer, I would have no reason to create a collaborative development environment. All I really need is an SVN server, my IDE, and a place to record documentation (might setup a wiki or a website or something). I would personally create a realistic schedule to follow and would work on sticking to that.
As for level of effort of documentation, that really depends on you and the product you are developing. For example, I would definitely recommend recording your requirements. Unless your product is trivial, there is no way you'll remember them all and why you wanted certain ones over others. Managing a full backlog, however, can be a job in and of itself. In the solo programmer case this may not make sense.
Basically, the point I'm trying to get across (and should be followed with every project - not just in this case) is have just enough management that makes sense. The rest should be focused on the work and the development of the product.
Something else you may want to look into is reading this - Agile Programming Works for the Solo Developer. There are other, similar, articles out there. Might give you some good thoughts.
If I know the requirements (at this
current time), do I record them
anyways? If so, how do I go about
doing this, and how do I manage these
requirements? Product backlog,
features list, etc?
I have two lists of features:
A high-level view which states the scope of the finished product
A list of the features which I'm implementing in this iteration
Because I don't need to communicate it to other people (yet) I tend to write down the things that I don't know about the project (if I already know it there's no need to write it down): it's when it gets too complicated, or when there are details which I haven't defined but need to define, that I start to define them in writing.
I did however try to investigate/make a business-case for the project before starting coding.
How does one efficiently appropriate
his/her time to each respective role?
I did non-programmer, product-owner thinking at times when I had to be away from the computer anyway.
Apart from that, my cycle is:
Implement more functionality
Integration-test it
[repeat as above]
Every 3 to 6 months I compare the new-functionality-accomplished against my estimated schedule, and then recalibrate: i.e., make a new list of the highest-priority features to implement in the next few months.
What would be a normal flow of events
that one would follow? Start coding
immediately, write down user
stories/use cases, then go into OOA/D?
I started with working part-time or in my spare time, to make sure that I had:
Understood the required functionality
Made significant architectural decisions
Written any throw-away prototypes as necessary to learn new technology
After that I was ready to start developing full-time.
What diagramming/modeling would be sufficient for this level? Domain model, class diagram, etc?
I'm not using diagrams at all (except for sketches of the UI). By structuring the code, and refactoring, I'm able to know/remember/rediscover/decide which software components implement what functionality.
It seems that when I leave the project
for some time and come back, it is
extremely hard to get back into the
rhythm of what I was doing.
You need to comment your code more. If you leave the code, come back in two weeks, and can't remember how the code works, you need more comments.
If I know the requirements (at this
current time), do I record them
anyways?
Yes, for the same reasons stated above.
how do I manage these requirements?
A feature list is OK, provided you have enough detail in each feature to jog your memory.
How does one efficiently appropriate
his/her time to each respective role?
Break down each feature into smaller and smaller tasks, until you feel like you can do each task in a half day or less.
What would be a normal flow of events
that one would follow?
That depends on your development style. In general I would follow a clear but simple architecture, avail yourself of software patterns where practical, and provide adequate unit tests for your code as you go.
What diagramming/modeling would be
sufficient for this level?
Sufficient diagramming/modeling to make the project clear in your head.
What steps, documentation, and other
project related activities are needed
to help bring this project from an
impractical, hobby project to
something more professional?
Other than what I have already mentioned, make sure you have a good source control system and daily backups in place.
Good luck!
If you believe there is a chance that you're going to work on the project for some amount of time, leave it, and then come back to it at a later date...your best bet is to treat the documentation for the project the same as if you were working with a large team.
That means documenting requirements (even if they're from yourself), writing use cases (if functionality is going to be complex, otherwise some other form of documentation could suffice), and some level of UML diagraming (or other domain specific diagram) which could include activity diagrams/class diagrams/etc.
That way, when you leave the project for some amount of time, you can come back to a well documented idea and pick up where you left off.
As a side note, I try to do the majority of those things no matter what...that way if I ever find somebody interested in working on the project with me, I can get them up to speed quickly and get them on board with my ideas.
This is how I work, YMMV:
Keep a spreadsheet for high level of everything - list of your projects, and some top-level items/todos/reminders
Create a "project" folder for each product/project you have or work on, and create a strucuture to contain documentation and code for the project.
Keep a top-level "catch-all" document for each project, in the root of this folder. Keep you ideas, research, notes etc in this doc.
Then if you want to get organized, keep an MS project file (or similar) and plot out timelines for the various steps in each project. This is good for tracking progress on each project and make sure you arent forgetting anything. Basically keeps you honest with yourself.
And if you need to track progress on project work you are doing for clients, I understand Basecamp is a good solution for this. I am currently evaluating it for my own company. See www.basecamphq.com
Even as a solo developer, you should document at least the overall features of your project, and then the requirements for the particular feature you are working to complete, and then maybe produce a short pseudo-code for the functionality you're currently working on.
That way, if you do end up breaking away from that project, you can get back to it and see where you're up to easily enough. It's also pointless getting too far ahead of yourself with details for this same reason.
It's also a neat motivational tool for a solo developer - getting through and ticking things off is a way to show progress - something that you can start to feel you're not making when you're chewing through a couple of thousand lines of code and it seems like you're still miles away from actually having 'module x' completed.
Lastly - with regards to code comments - I at least try and fill out what actions/behaviour a new function should have in an outline, and then write the code in between the comments. Also, it is useful having plain English explanations of why you're branching in an if/else to support the logic in the condition...
I belive that better results in solo development one can achive with appropriate tools support and tasks that compensate lack of ohers people and help to organize working time. Any tool that generate metada with minimal create time cost describing your software is helpful.
VCS and tools for tracking user actity/code changes history - very important is to add good commit messages
mind-mapping tools for storing project related data (e.g. XMind), blacboard is useful too :)
time tracking tools (e.g. Toggl.com)
write a lot of acceptance test and use acceptance testing frameworks
Of course these clues also fits in non solo development :)
As a lone developer, I've found that your time is very expensive. This means that you have to balance sustainability and momentum - even though you are just one guy, you have to do things so that the you six months from now can go back and look at old stuff without wasting time, without spending so much time maintaining the systems that it compromises your flow.
Your question suggests that you are thinking in terms of fairly heavyweight tools and processes, but the 80/20 rule applies - for example, you can nail documentation well enough by TDD, using the doc tools of your platform to generate API docs, plus a Wiki for specs, lists, etc.
In that vein, I would suggest that you choose your platform carefully. The question about modelling suggests that you are using a platform that produce a lot of code and artifacts, but you may be able to get most of the functionality for much less management overhead elsewhere. Today I'm working on a .NET Web app that I wrote "the right way", but now realize that I could have delivered the same functionality much more efficiently in this case by using PHP with a PHP MVC framework to keep a clean structure.
Specific tools that I'd recommend:
A distributed version control system (much less overhead than centralized)
The most lightweight platform that you can use that has good tooling
A Wiki to easily capture and maintain small and large bits of content
Whatever testing framework that you can use, right from the start of the project
A lightweight TODO list system that you can access from anywhere
I used to work on a very small team (one dba and one C# developer). Even then I found it very useful to have written requirements, formal tests, source control and bug tracking (we used bug tracking for our features as well as bugs). It helped us to not forget anything and a year later when you were doing maintenance, you had something to research though to help you undersatnd what you did. Plus when the two of us left (as most people eventually move on) there was documentation there for the next person.
I work in a small and young team of developers and we have problems that we are not sure how to solve.
On previous projects every developer have been working on tasks that were based on use cases. So, upon setting the system architecture, each team member worked on user interface and business logic of tasks assigned to him.
This kind of organization gave us the problems with UI. Each developer had his own logic about how UI should look like, where buttons should be, etc etc... and even if we've had one css designer a lot of refactoring had to be done in order to make web site to look compactly.
How do you deal with this issue?
Do you split tasks based on layer, not on whole use case?
Do you use some technical solution to achieve this or is it just written standard that every developer need to follow?
Thanks
Everyone has their own style and it would be difficult and a waste of time to define a standard that would get everyone to draw the UI in a consistent manner. Instead, elect your best UI designer to do what he does best and design the UI for the whole system. Funneling all UI changes through the designer would be difficult so just let your developers "mess it up" as they implement new use cases and just have your designer clean it up before the release. It shouldn't be hard for him/her to rearrange the existing forms and bring some consistency back to the UI.
I've found this 12 Standard Screen Patterns article very useful.
A solution might be to create sketches of all screens of your application, have them reviewed by an ergonomy-expert to correct the biggest mistakes, and, only then, give them to your developpers.
This way, they would know how the screens they are developping should look like -- there will still be a couple of differences in the end, but those should not be "big differences", and should be eaiser to fix.
And this would mean not each developper has to imagine what the perfect screen would look like : each one of those would be coherent with the others.
Adopt the tried and tested MVC system, let the view be decoupled from the business logic. Then ask a UI designer to produce sketches and work to that. UI's are something best done top-down from my experience. The user gets an overall view before being presented with all the details, defining and capturing this hierarchy makes good UI's. Coding of business logic is done as you mentioned on a use-case basis, mostly bottom-up and this is where the code falls out of sync with the UI.
Designate one person (preferably someone with graphic design experience, even if they're not really a programmer) and give them the authority to make cosmetic changes to all forms, pages and controls at any time, and have them be responsible for the overall look and feel of the application.
As far as metrics go, keep track of how much time this one person has to spend "fixing" each programmer's work, and make sure the programmers are aware of these numbers. The idea is to encourage them to make their stuff look like it should from the beginning, but also not to do weird things based on what they think stuff should look like. I've had to spend more time undoing my coworkers' bizarre design choices than anything else.
Don't be afraid to have outside sources review the design work of each programmer. It's very common for programmers to 1) produce horrible-looking UIs, and 2) believe the UIs look fantastic. You should do what the Army does with boot camp: break them down completely right from the start, so that you can build them back up again the right way.
Part of the problem with creating your own written standard is that while well meaning, there could be mistakes or better ways to do things than what's been standardized. For example, where I work, the standardized cancel button does nothing when you click on it (it's been wired to Reset).
Instead, I recommend choosing existing standards, such as The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines or Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines. Even if the standard is wrong, it's rarely profitable to deviate from widely established conventions.
Then pick up some good books for the developers, such as "Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design". Good user interface design is partially a matter of good taste, and while not every developer will be interested in the subject, it's in your best interest to help them improve.
Next, empower your QA team to file bugs when the interface for one product is inconsistent with another. The developer can then either standardize or justify the deviation if he has a reason. We do this; it works pretty well.
Lastly, go over your existing products and get a consensus on how their interfaces should be unified. Bring in (and keep) a usability expert if you can. I've seen good ones do amazing work.
There really is no clear solution for how to deal with UI problems. There are however several approaches one can take to combat the problem of having things become too complicated:
Use cases are usually cross disciplinary in nature, thus the responsibility to get a use case done should be split between the people who can implement it properly. Programmer and designer type of people need to cooperate.
Everyone in the team needs to keep in mind seperation of concerns, i.e. things that can be seperated must be kept that way preferably as early as possible. There are so many ways to do this: e.g. apply MVC pattern in your project (which is a very wide way to put it). Presentation and logic should be seperate so that changes in one layer should not affect the other.
Someone needs to be responsible for the overall UI design so it is consistent throughout the application. Preferably someone who is both a graphic designer and has some insight in usability. UI design is something that needs to be planned along with the use cases and revised constantly as development goes on. Consistent UI is very important and developers need to be on board on it.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Perhaps the most obvious way of protecting a company's intellectual property from its own developers seems to be an NDA - Non Disclosure Agreement. Effectiveness of this approach may vary, depending on many factors, and sometimes or somewhere it may not work as expected.
What other approaches, apart from this purely legal one, exist for protecting software code from the people who develop it? Do they exist at all? Does it make sense in practice?
Maybe, for example, Team Edition of Visual Studio already contains some features related to this problem (for example, levels of access to parts of code, depending of role inside a development team or something like that)?
Reference on the topic:
As statistics says, on average, programmers tend to change their job every three - four years.
Try to build a team you can trust.
The first approach is to force programmers to only know interfaces of other components, so that each one can only steal a small part of the whole software. This approach can be borrowed from footwear production. One transnational corporation, to prevent stealing by employees, arranged its factories so that each factory produced only left or only right shoes. You could do the same with your code: some programmers only write lines with odd numbers, and the others--those with even numbers; provided that they can't see the work of each other! That's sometimes referred to as "pair programming".
Some organizations force employees to sign a non-compete agreement. That's the kind of agreement that prevents programmers to work for competitors. This technique is best combined with job postings like "Looking for senior programmer with 5 years of experience in the similar field".
To prevent your programmers from stealing, you can do harm to them as soon as they finish the software. The method proved itself as the most efficient, and has been used for centuries. For example, Russian Tzar Ivan The Terrible burned eyes of the architect that designed a beautiful church at the Red Square, so the one designed remains the most beautiful ever. You can do something like this to your architect. I heard, latest Visual Studio contains some features...
Nowadays, however, it's more humanistic to hire already blind and already dumb people that lost their hands, so that they can't look at your code to memorize it, can't tell anyone about your code and can't type it again. The advantage is that this will help you dealing with labor agency in your country, which watches for balance that your employees are not discriminated.
And yes, this post is a sarcastic joke, which criticizes the idea of any code-stealing-prevention measures. Sorry, couldn't help posting it.
How do you protect a power plant from sabotage by an employee? How do you prevent a boxer from throwing the fight? How do you prevent a brothel from distributing the clap?
Your concern, while valid, is one that can only be properly addressed by personal responsibility and accountability within your team. Any options you employ to secure the code against theft is likely do more harm than good. If you feel a team member is not trustworthy, get rid of them.
If really necessary you can split the application in subapplications.
Each team works in a single application and sees all others as "black boxes". Maybe SOA helps here.
It's highly unlikely that your code is the real intellectual property - that is your company's business knowledge and process.
SVN has the ability to limit different users to different folders, so you could split your code up into seperate libraries, and allow only certain people Read / Write access.
The file for this is under conf\authz
Here is a sample
[aliases]
# joe = /C=XZ/ST=Dessert/L=Snake City/O=Snake Oil, Ltd./OU=Research Institute/CN=Joe Average
[groups]
# harry_and_sally = harry,sally
# harry_sally_and_joe = harry,sally,&joe
[/
# [/foo/bar]
# harry = rw
# &joe = r
# * =
# [repository:/baz/fuz]
# #harry_and_sally = rw
# * = r
Some documentation can be found here
Under 'Per-directory access control'
Either build a team of developers that you can trust, or entirely lock their system down so they can't access the USB ports, the CD drive, or web mail clients. The only thing they could do is work on the code and possibly browse the web. Also only give them access to the code that they are in charge of.
But with all these security measures chances are your developers will hate working with you and quit their job
There's no straightforward way to do this if your code is within the same project (i.e. you want to allow access to some parts of the code and not others). However, if you have seperate projects that require different security levels, it's possible to allow developers to only have code access to certain projects, and then pull builds from a common build server.
Keep in mind that decompiling of frameworks that work against IL like .NET is relatively straightforward, so preventing access to the code files is not necessarily a silver bullet to protect IP.
I know you said aside from the purely legal one, but I'd just like to add that in addition to the legal one you mentioned, there is also the Non-Compete. Basically says that once you leave your job, you won't be able to compete in any way against your former employer. Stealing code is not as appealing if you won't be able to put it to use for a year or two.
You could make them develop a module that would be seperate from the rest of the application. If you had a plugin/module type system going this would suit well. You could release APIs for the developers to develop against and have them integrate with your DLLs and not the source code.
People seem to be very critical of this but there are legitimate reasons for doing this i.e. partnering with a potential competitor if you gave them all your source you would be shooting yourself in the foot.
It might be worthwhile to spend some brain cell activity on the business model you want to follow. If the core value is embodied in the code, the core value can be stolen by stealing the code. If, however, the core value of your business is embodied in a group of employees, some of them engineers, others sales people, yet others customer support people, and when the software is only the net that keeps these peoples business going, then there's no easy way of stealing the value of your business. And if the software does get stolen, the thieves won't be able to make much use of it.
So, in addition to what cherouvim said, build a team that you can not just trust, but a team that is the core value of your business.
Develop your software in modules.
Have one common module that contains objects that pass back and forth, and utility classes that act on those objects.
Have each group build modules on top of that, without much need to know about other modules.
Have one trusted team of developers do the planning of what goes in each module, and have that team also do the integration of all of the modules into the whole.
Also have a lot of trust in whoever runs your version control server. While it's stable, no one developer can do all that much harm; they can't delete everything, for example, and you'll know exactly what they did and when if that ever becomes an issue.
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 have been looking for a collaborative tool for developing functional specifications. I am looking for the ability to:
Have multiple users contribute to the specification.
Provide some form of traceability, which could be done manually if needed.
Provide users with the ability to add comments and notes.
Upload and display Visio documents
Upload and display mockup screens using Balsamiq Mockup.
My initial impression is that using a wiki could be a good tool for this task. Does anyone have experience with using a wiki for creating functional specifications? What would be the pros and cons to using a tool like this as opposed to a requirements management tool?
Your input is greatly appreciated!
It's possible to do what you describe, to develop requirements in a collaborative way, in spite of using a wiki. Nothing about the wiki paradigm assists in this process.
I managed a wiki on the Zend Framework project to track proposals for components. They're still using it. Proposals are different from functional specifications, but the usage is similar enough to your question that I think this is relevant.
A wiki doesn't take care of itself. Unless you have someone responsible for managing it and making sure there is some structure and consistency, it quickly becomes a mess. The real-world analogy would be to hand each of your team a blank sheet of paper and tell them to write up their part of the requirements. Problems with this are:
Every contributor has to make up their own document structure, and write about different things in a different order. So it's impossible to compare one page to another.
There's no "index page" to organize all the disparate contributions. No one wants a page to "fall through the cracks," but in a wiki that's the default destiny of any page as soon as it's written.
There's no feedback loop to make sure the writing actually gets done.
The way to make it work is to apply some process to the project, and use the wiki in accordance with that process.
Give people the ability to create a new page in the wiki, but only through an interface that automatically links the new page into the right index.
Define a lifecycle for documents, so they are sure to be drafted, reviewed, and approved at the appropriate stages.
Provide a template for a new page. Provide the section headings that you need in each of these pages, and make part of the review process a confirmation that head section has been filled out adequately.
"What would be the pros and cons to using a tool like this as opposed to a requirements management tool?"
While it seems like a great idea, what you run into are people who can't and won't write.
People who can't write -- well -- can't write. They can't communicate with an email or a wiki or any medium outside voice.
Some people are "disorganized". Actually, writing is too linear and they don't think linearly.
Some people don't get the "write to your audience" and write stuff that's incomprehensible.
Sometimes you can't even figure out what they're talking about, much less what they're writing about. They talk in jargon or code. They don't know much but insist on being heard.
Some people won't write.
Some people refuse to make commitments. Even in a wiki where it can be retracted. They feel they must pre-discuss everything.
Some people are in the habit of doing everything by giving direction to someone else. They either don't write for themselves, or, they make people stand around in their office and listen to them talk and type.
Some people are generally toxic on any kind of project. They spring new requirements at the last minute. Their first response is "that will never work". They don't brainstorm well. When they say it work work, and you beg them for an improvement, they don't have one. They just know it won't work.
My experience is that only programmers can use a Wiki successfully. And only senior-level programmers.
N00bz don't have enough experience to sort out requirements from design from rumors and management fluff.
N00bz don't always have the language skills to write clearly. They may eventually, but one look at their Javadoc comments indicates that they're struggling with the "clarity" part of writing.
It's very appealing. I'm hoping for people to get better at using wiki's because I think it could have a lot of advantages over more traditional approaches where one person interviews everyone and writes things down. But it requires a level of confidence and skill in communication that few people seem to have.
Consider researching Fog Bugz. They tout themselves as the best of the
best for project management. Considering Joel's history I'd give them the
benefit of the doubt. They use a wiki in the way you've just described.
I would suggest signing up for the free trial, if you're serious.
Depending on the size of your project, buying it might be a very good
option.
At very least you could look at how they've structured it, or read the
forums for ideas on how to build your own stripped down version
Specialist tools help keep things on track and introduce a fixed work-flow. This is kind of the point, keeping things focused and functional. Using generic tools like a Wiki might be great for a bunch of programmers but introducing one for 'mixed-mode' work might be bad:
Things can creep and get off-track quickly
Communication can be lost in the medium
Look at things like Basecamp. They can be thought of as an applied wiki, or collaborative tool. A generic tool for specific purpose needs refining. I don't know if MediaWiki or others have enough customization to keep things clean and focused.
Maybe gather the requirements for your requirements management tool (recursive I know) and what aspects (communication aspects) you can take from the wiki culture and an open-communication mindset. If neither requirements management tools or wikis fit the bill, look at building one. Might be the next big thing. It feels like saying Could I use a wiki instead of Bugzilla?
A fixed work-flow webapp for requirements management with an open-communication emphasis that allows people from many roles to see and understand might be good!
We have used TWiki and now FosWiki in that context. There are many things one gets for free (version control, access control, Web-base access, searches, remote management, security patches, ...). In a few minutes, one can define:
a table defining requirements attributes,
which creates interactive forms with field selection and validation (where you can also document discussions and rationales, embed images, attach documents, link to other requirements...),
and then queries on these "requirements" and show them as tables that can be sorted, filtered, printed, reported against, etc. (e.g., http://jucmnav.softwareengineering.ca/ucm/bin/view/ProjetSEG/JUCMNavRequirementsVer2).
Obviously, one can easily use hyperlinks and Wiki links along the way. FosWiki also has features that can be used to enforce specific workflows, if needed. It is also easy to support forms for use cases and other paradigms (we have done this in the past, and that works generally well).
Wikis such as FosWiki are extensible and one could develop further modules for addressing weaknesses related to traceability management and impact analysis, table-based modifications of requirements, overall packaging, etc.
As a middle ground between a free-form wiki and a requirements management tool, consider using a structured wiki like Foswiki. I haven't done any formal requirements management (with a wiki or otherwise), but I have used TWiki (the predecessor to Foswiki) for other tasks, and it permits you to define a workflow, form fields, and so on as you need them, while keeping the flexibility of a wiki when you don't need a formal structure.
I agree with all (most) of the people above - use of a wiki may sound ok, but wiki's are meant to be present information and be updated as needed, not to be used as an interactive project management tool. I would strongly suggest SmartSheet (I'm a strong advocate of the product) - it provides a spreadsheet like interface where you can store multiple files per row/task, send out automated updates to users and maintain specification revisions...
The other approach could be the use of Google email, docs and calendar - a free friendly way of team interaction....I would shy away from issue/bug tracking tools for project management - they tend to have differ on focus: PM tools on the entire project/resource/timeline and Issue tracking tools for specific entered issues....
This may be a bit old now, but I am currently using Atlassian's "Confluence" and it's been great. I currently work as a UX engineer playing the role of "Product Owner" within an Agile process. I can document requirements for discrete interfaces, allow for multiple users' feedback and comments, and intertwine each interface with other interfaces within a larger context (e.g. user story). Everything is very dynamic and template driven. It's suiting my current needs very well.