Xref: utzoo comp.sw.components:314 comp.software-eng:2126
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uwm.edu!mrsvr.UUCP!positron.uucp!hallett
From: hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163	)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Schedule and budget are secondary
Message-ID: <1189@mrsvr.UUCP>
Date: 11 Oct 89 17:06:55 GMT
References: <16168@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <6693@hubcap.clemson.edu> <16187@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Sender: news@mrsvr.UUCP
Reply-To: hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163)
Followup-To: comp.sw.components
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee,  WI
Lines: 22

In article <16187@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes:
>It is entirely possible to construct software which meets all such require-
>ments, but which is poorly conceived or implemented.  Examples abound.  I


Therefore   it  is  time  someone   addressed  the  issue   of how  to
quantitatively    specify    nebulous  terms   like "user   friendly",
"maintainable", "extendible", etc.  In  a requirements document, these
terms have no meaning aside from the warm and  fuzzy connotations.  To
quote Star Trek: The Next   Generation ("Samaritan Snare"), the  space
moron stated : "We look for things: things  to make us go."  Sure, but
quantify it. 

How   does  one  specify  a  requirement   for "user  friendliness" or
"well-written"? 


--
	     Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering
      GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414, Milwaukee, WI  53201
	    (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL -  hallett@gemed.ge.com
     "Your logic was impeccable Captain. We are in grave danger."