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.
Related
I've read a statement somewhere that generating UI automatically from DB layout (or business objects, or whatever other business layer) is a bad idea. I can also imagine a few good challenges that one would have to face in order to make something like this.
However I have not seen (nor could find) any examples of people attempting it. Thus I'm wondering - is it really that bad? It's definately not easy, but can it be done with any measure success? What are the major obstacles? It would be great to see some examples of successes and failures.
To clarify - with "generating UI automatically" I mean that the all forms with all their controls are generated completely automatically (at runtime or compile time), based perhaps on some hints in metadata on how the data should be represented. This is in contrast to designing forms by hand (as most people do).
Added: Found this somewhat related question
Added 2: OK, it seems that one way this can get pretty fair results is if enough presentation-related metadata is available. For this approach, how much would be "enough", and would it be any less work than designing the form manually? Does it also provide greater flexibility for future changes?
We had a project which would generate the database tables/stored proc as well as the UI from business classes. It was done in .NET and we used a lot of Custom Attributes on the classes and properties to make it behave how we wanted it to. It worked great though and if you manage to follow your design you can create customizations of your software really easily. We also did have a way of putting in "custom" user controls for some very exceptional cases.
All in all it worked out well for us. Unfortunately it is a sold banking product and there is no available source.
it's ok for something tiny where all you need is a utilitarian method to get the data in.
for anything resembling a real application though, it's a terrible idea. what makes for a good UI is the humanisation factor, the bits you tweak to ensure that this machine reacts well to a person's touch.
you just can't get that when your interface is generated mechanically.... well maybe with something approaching AI. :)
edit - to clarify: UI generated from code/db is fine as a starting point, it's just a rubbish end point.
hey this is not difficult to achieve at all and its not a bad idea at all. it all depends on your project needs. a lot of software products (mind you not projects but products) depend upon this model - so they dont have to rewrite their code / ui logic for different client needs. clients can customize their ui the way they want to using a designer form in the admin system
i have used xml for preserving meta data for this sort of stuff. some of the attributes which i saved for every field were:
friendlyname (label caption)
haspredefinedvalues (yes for drop
down list / multi check box list)
multiselect (if yes then check box
list, if no then drop down list)
datatype
maxlength
required
minvalue
maxvalue
regularexpression
enabled (to show or not to show)
sortkey (order on the web form)
regarding positioning - i did not care much and simply generate table tr td tags 1 below the other - however if you want to implement this as well, you can have 1 more attribute called CssClass where you can define ui specific properties (look and feel, positioning, etc) here
UPDATE: also note a lot of ecommerce products follow this kind of dynamic ui when you want to enter product information - as their clients can be selling everything under the sun from furniture to sex toys ;-) so instead of rewriting their code for every different industry they simply let their clients enter meta data for product attributes via an admin form :-)
i would also recommend you to look at Entity-attribute-value model - it has its own pros and cons but i feel it can be used quite well with your requirements.
In my Opinion there some things you should think about:
Does the customer need a function to customize his UI?
Are there a lot of different attributes or elements?
Is the effort of creating such an "rendering engine" worth it?
Okay, i think that its pretty obvious why you should think about these. It really depends on your project if that kind of model makes sense...
If you want to create some a lot of forms that can be customized at runtime then this model could be pretty uselful. Also, if you need to do a lot of smaller tools and you use this as some kind of "engine" then this effort could be worth it because you can save a lot of time.
With that kind of "rendering engine" you could automatically add error reportings, check the values or add other things that are always build up with the same pattern. But if you have too many of this things, elements or attributes then the performance can go down rapidly.
Another things that becomes interesting in bigger projects is, that changes that have to occur in each form just have to be made in the engine, not in each form. This could save A LOT of time if there is a bug in the finished application.
In our company we use a similar model for an interface generator between cash-software (right now i cant remember the right word for it...) and our application, just that it doesnt create an UI, but an output file for one of the applications.
We use XML to define the structure and how the values need to be converted and so on..
I would say that in most cases the data is not suitable for UI generation. That's why you almost always put a a layer of logic in between to interpret the DB information to the user. Another thing is that when you generate the UI from DB you will end up displaying the inner workings of the system, something that you normally don't want to do.
But it depends on where the DB came from. If it was created to exactly reflect what the users goals of the system is. If the users mental model of what the application should help them with is stored in the DB. Then it might just work. But then you have to start at the users end. If not I suggest you don't go that way.
Can you look on your problem from application architecture perspective? I see you as another database terrorist – trying to solve all by writing stored procedures. Why having UI at all? Try do it in DB script. In effect of such approach – on what composite system you will end up? When system serves different businesses – try modularization, selectively discovered components, restrict sharing references. UI shall be replaceable, independent from business layer. When storing so much data in DB – there is hard dependency of UI – system becomes monolith. How you implement MVVM pattern in scenario when UI is generated? Designers like Blend are containing lots of features, which cannot be replaced by most futuristic UI generator – unless – your development platform is Notepad only.
There is a hybrid approach where forms and all are described in a database to ensure consistency server side, which is then compiled to ensure efficiency client side on deploy.
A real-life example is the enterprise software MS Dynamics AX.
It has a 'Data' database and a 'Model' database.
The 'Model' stores forms, classes, jobs and every artefact the application needs to run.
Deploying the new software structure used to be to dump the model database and initiate a CIL compile (CIL for common intermediate language, something used by Microsoft in .net)
This way is suitable for enterprise-wide software and can handle large customizations. But keep in mind that this approach sets a framework that should be well understood by whoever gonna maintain and customize the application later.
I did this (in PHP / MySQL) to automatically generate sections of a CMS that I was building for a client. It worked OK my main problem was that the code that generates the forms became very opaque and difficult to understand therefore difficult to reuse and modify so I did not reuse it.
Note that the tables followed strict conventions such as naming, etc. which made it possible for the UI to expect particular columns and infer information about the naming of the columns and tables. There is a need for meta information to help the UI display the data.
Generally it can work however the thing is if your UI just mirrors the database then maybe there is lots of room to improve. A good UI should do much more than mirror a database, it should be built around human interaction patterns and preferences, not around the database structure.
So basically if you want to be cheap and do a quick-and-dirty interface which mirrors your DB then go for it. The main challenge would be to find good quality code that can do this or write it yourself.
From my perspective, it was always a problem to change edit forms when a very simple change was needed in a table structure.
I always had the feeling we have to spend too much time on rewriting the CRUD forms instead of developing the useful stuff, like processing / reporting / analyzing data, giving alerts for decisions etc...
For this reason, I made long time ago a code generator. So, it become easier to re-generate the forms with a simple restriction: to keep the CSS classes names. Simply like this!
UI was always based on a very "standard" code, controlled by a custom CSS.
Whenever I needed to change database structure, so update an edit form, I had to re-generate the code and redeploy.
One disadvantage I noticed was about the changes (customizations, improvements etc.) done on the previous generated code, which are lost when you re-generate it.
But anyway, the advantage of having a lot of work done by the code-generator was great!
I initially did it for the 2000s Microsoft ASP (Active Server Pages) & Microsoft SQL Server... so, when that technology was replaced by .NET, my code-generator become obsoleted.
I made something similar for PHP but I never finished it...
Anyway, from small experiments I found that generating code ON THE FLY can be way more helpful (and this approach does not exclude the SAVED generated code): no worries about changing database etc.
So, the next step was to create something that I am very proud to show here, and I think it is one nice resolution for the issue raised in this thread.
I would start with applicable use cases: https://data-seed.tech/usecases.php.
I worked to add details on how to use, but if something is still missing please let me know here!
You can change database structure, and with no line of code you can start edit data, and more like this, you have available an API for CRUD operations.
I am still a fan of the "code-generator" approach, and I think it is just a flavor of using XML/XSLT that I used for DATA-SEED. I plan to add code-generator functionalities.
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 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 found What are mvp and mvc and what is the difference but it didn't really answer this question.
I've recently started using MVC because it's part of the framework that myself and my work-partner are going to use. We chose it because it looked easy and separated process from display, are there advantages besides this that we don't know about and could be missing out on?
Pros
Display and Processing are seperated
Cons
None so far
MVC is the separation of model, view and controller — nothing more, nothing less. It's simply a paradigm; an ideal that you should have in the back of your mind when designing classes. Avoid mixing code from the three categories into one class.
For example, while a table grid view should obviously present data once shown, it should not have code on where to retrieve the data from, or what its native structure (the model) is like. Likewise, while it may have a function to sum up a column, the actual summing is supposed to happen in the controller.
A 'save file' dialog (view) ultimately passes the path, once picked by the user, on to the controller, which then asks the model for the data, and does the actual saving.
This separation of responsibilities allows flexibility down the road. For example, because the view doesn't care about the underlying model, supporting multiple file formats is easier: just add a model subclass for each.
Separation of concerns is the biggy.
Being able to tease these components apart makes the code easier to re-use and independently test. If you don't actually know what MVC is, be careful about trying to understand people's opinions as there is still some contention about what the "Model" is (whether it is the business objects/DataSets/DataTables or if it represents the underlying service layer).
I've seen all sorts of implementations that call themselves MVC but aren't exactly and as the comments in Jeff's article show MVC is a contentious point that I don't think developers will ever fully agree upon.
A good round up of all of the different MVC types is available here.
Jeff has a post about it, otherwise I found some useful documents on Apple's website, in Cocoa tutorials (this one for example).
I think another benefit of using the MVC pattern is that it opens up the doors to other approaches to the design, such as MVP/Presenter first and the many other MV* patterns.
Without this fundamental segregation of the design "components" the adoption of these techniques would be much more difficult.
I think it helps to make your code even more interface-based.. Not only within the individual project, but you can almost start to develop common "views" which mean you can template lot more of the "grunt" code used in your applications. For example, a very abstract "data view" which simply takes a bunch of data and throws it to a common grid layout.
Edit:
If I remember correctly, this is a pretty good podcast on MV* patterns (listened to it a while ago!)
MVC is just a general design pattern that, in the context of lean web app development, makes it easy for the developer to keep the HTML markup in an app’s presentation layer (the view) separate from the methods that receive and handle client requests (the controllers) and the data representations that are returned within the view (the models). It’s all about separation of concerns, that is, keeping code that serves one functional purpose (e.g. handling client requests) sequestered from code that serves an entirely different functional purpose (e.g. representing data).
It’s the same principle for why anybody who’s spent more than 5 min trying to build a website can appreciate the need to keep your HTML markup, JavaScript, and CSS in separate files: If you just dump all of your code into a single file, you end up with spaghetti that’s virtually un-editable later on.
Since you asked for possible "cons": I’m no authority on software architecture design, but based on my experience developing in MVC, I think it’s also important to point out that following a strict, no-frills MVC design pattern is most useful for 1) lightweight web apps, or 2) as the UI layer of a larger enterprise app. I’m surprised this specification isn’t talked about more, because MVC contains no explicit definitions for your business logic, domain models, or really anything in the data access layer of your app. When I started developing in ASP.NET MVC (i.e. before I knew other software architectures even existed), I would end up with very bloated controllers or even view models chock full of business logic that, had I been working on enterprise applications, would have made it difficult for other devs who were unfamiliar with my code to modify (i.e. more spaghetti).
One con I can think of is if you need really fast access to your data in your view (for example, game animation data like bone positions.) It is very inefficient to keep a layer of separation in this case.
Otherwise, for most other applications which are more data driven than graphics driven, it seems like a logical way to drive a UI.
If you follow the stackoverflow podcasts you can hear Jeff (and Geoff?) discuss its greatness. https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/08/podcast-17/. But remember that using these separate layers means things are easier in the future--and harder now. And layers can make things slower. And you may not need them. But don't let that stop you from learning what it is--when building big, robust, long-lived systems, it's invaluable.
It separates Model and View controlled by a Controller,
As far as Model is concerned, Your Models has to follow OO architecture, future enhancements and other maintenance of the code base should be very easy and the code base should be reusable.
Same model can have any no.of views e.g) same info can be shown in as different graphical views.
Same view can have different no.of models e.g) different detailed can be shown as a single graph say as a bar graph.
This is what is re-usability of both View and Model.
Enhancements in views and other support of new technologies for building the view can be implemented easily.
Guy who is working on view dose not need to know about the underlying Model code base and its architecture, vise versa for the model.
One of the major advantages of MVC which has not mentioned here is that MVC provides RESTful urls which enables SEO. When you name your Controllers and Actions wisely, it makes it easier for search engines to find your site if they only take a look at your site Urls. For example you have a car sale website and a page which displays available Lamborghini Veneno cars, instead of having www.MyCarSale.com/product/6548 referring to the page you can choose www.MyCarSale.com/SportCar/Lamborghini-Veneno url for SEO purpose.
Here is a good answer to MVC Advantages and here is an article How to create a SEO friendly Url.
Main advantage of MVC architecture is differentiating the layers of a project in Model,View and Controller for the Re-usability of code, easy to maintain code and maintenance. The best thing is the developer feels good to add some code in between the project maintenance.
Here you can see the some more points on Main Advantages of MVC Architecture.
![mvc architecture][1]
Model–view–controller (MVC) is a software architectural pattern for implementing user interfaces. It divides a given software application into three interconnected parts, so as to separate internal representations of information from the ways that information is presented to or accepted from the user.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I work for a CMMI level 5 certified company and one thing I hate about is the amount of documents we prepare (As a programmer I already hate documents). We have lots and lots of documents like PID(project initiation doc), Business requirements, System requirements,tech spec, Code review checklist, issue logs, Defect logs, Configuration management plan, Configuration management check list(s), Release documents and lots...
Almost 90% of these docs are just done for the sake of QA audit :) .. What do you think are the most important documents for a project? What documents can be used in the long run by another developer?
Please share your good practices here. I would like to use them for my own projects or the company I am planning to start in the long run.
Thanks
The key document is a good functional spec. There should be one and only one reference document for a system.
Overdoing documentation proliferates a large number of small requirements and spec documents every time someone changes a system or interface. For a system of any complexity, before long you have your spec distributed around several hundred assorted word, excel, visio and even powerpoint files. When this happens you lose clarity about what is current or even whether you have located and identified all pertinent documentation.
The BRD-SRD-Tech spec progression is based on an assumption that the business signs off the BRD, a business analyst signs off the SRD against requirements documented in the BRD and the technical specification is signed off against the SRD. This generates a web of sign-offs, multiple documents with redundant information and makes it difficult and clumsy to keep the spec documents up to date.
Because of this, subsequent requirements documentatation tends to take the form of a series of change request and supplemental requirement and spec docs, each with their own sign-off and audit process. You gain CYA and audit trail (or at least the appearance of an audit trail), but you lose clarity. There is now no definitive reference document for the system and it is difficult to establish what is current or relevant to any particular activity. The net result is that your business analysis process gets bogged down in forensic research, which adds overheads and latency to delivery schedules.
A spec document should be built in such a way that there is one definitive reference for any given system or subsystem. The document should be kept up to date and versioned. Get a good technical documentation tool like Framemaker, so your process can scale, and the document has some structural integrity of the sort lacking on Word.
For me the only real document I ever use is a spec. The more detail the better. However it doesnt need to be all completed at one time, and it doesnt need to be particularly formal. What is far more useful to me than documents that are checked and signed and double checked and double signed is always being able to get the latest version of a document. And being able to talk to people about what they have written, and get a decision in the case of any ambiguity. this is far more useful to me than anything else.
To sum up: a spec is the only document I have ever found useful, however it pales in comparison to having a project manager who knows the proposed system inside out, and can make sensible decisions based on what they know.
Documentation is like tofu -- most people hate it until they realize that under the right conditions, it can be really good.
The problem is that what you consider documentation is mostly made for documentation's sake. You, as a developer, don't see any immediate value in the documents you produce because you know you can do your job without all the TPS reports which you're required to make.
Unfortunately, I'm going to wager that there's not a lot you can do about in a company where you're being forced to eat raw tofu all the time. You'll probably just have to suck it up and write the docs which your company requires, but you can at least do one thing... you can write documents which at least are useful to you, and you can pass them along with your code for others who will maintain it.
Aside from inline documentation, you could set up a wiki to be used by yourself and people on your team. This type of documentation is searchable, which is already a big plus to developers, plus it's more of a living document instead of a homework-like paper you had to write. You already post to SO, so just think of your documentation as pooling your knowledge in a more useful place.
What do you think are the most important documents for a project?
Different people have different needs: for example the documents which the owner needs (e.g. the business contract) aren't the same as the documents which QA needs.
What documents can be used in the long run by another developer?
IMO the most important document (except for the source code) is the functional specification: because what the software is supposed to do (as opposed to, what it is doing) is the one thing that can't necessarily be reverse-engineered. See also How does a good developer keep from creating code with a low bus hit factor?
User Stories, burndown chart, code
I'm a fan of the old 4+1 views:
Use Case view (a/k/a user stories). There are several forms: proper use cases, forward-looking use cases that aren't as well defined and epics which need to be decomposed.
Logical view. The "static" view. UML Class diagrams and the like work well here as a design document. This also includes request and response formats for various protocols. Here is where we document the RESTful requests and responses. This includes the REST URI design.
Process view. The "dynamic" view. UML activity diagrams, sequence diagrams and statecharts and the like for here for design documents. In some cases, simple narratives work well. In other cases, there's a State design pattern, and it requires a combination of class diagrams and statecharts to show how the stateful objects interact.
This also includes protocols (e.g. REST). Here is where we define any special processing for the various REST requests.
This also includes an authentication or authorization rules, and any other cross-cutting aspects like security, logging, etc.
Component view. The pieces we're building for deployment. This includes the stuff we depend on, the structure of the modules and packages, etc. This is often a simple component diagram or a list of components and their dependencies.
Deployment view. We try to generate this from the code as deployed. Since we're using Python, we use epydoc to create the API documentation. We also use Sphinx to import module documentation into this view of the software.
This also includes the parameters, settings, and configuration details.
This, however, isn't sufficient.
When projects start, you have to work up to this through a series of sprints.
The first sprints build just the use case view.
Subsequent sprints build an "architecture" to implement the use cases. The architecture document has 4+1 views, but at a high level of abstraction. It summarizes the structure of the model schemas, the requests and replies, the RESTful processing, other processing, the expected componentry, etc. It never has a Deployment view. We generally reference operator guide and API documents as the deployment view of an architecture.
Then design-and-construction sprints build (and update) detailed 4+1 view documents for various components.
Then release sprints build (and update) the deployment views.
From the project point of view, the most important documents are those that normally include the word Plan, such as the Project Plan, Configuration Management Plan, Quality Plan, etc.
What you are describing is common in process improvements, and normally responds to two major causes. One is that the system really is overeaching and getting in the way of real work being done. Another is actually answered in your question: it is not that the documents are only done for the sake of audits, and your focus should not just be how usefull is the doc for other developers, but for the project or the company as a whole.
One usually looks at things from it's own perspective, sometimes it's necessary to look at the general picture.
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.