Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seismo!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!mcs.kent.edu!rothstei
From: rothstei@mcs.kent.edu (Michael Rothstein)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <1991May9.160716.29500@mcs.kent.edu>
Date: 9 May 91 16:07:16 GMT
References: <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com> <35177@athertn.Atherton.COM> <1991May9.124559.2924@ssd.kodak.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kent State University
Lines: 19

In article <1991May9.124559.2924@ssd.kodak.com> nichols@ssd.kodak.com (Tim Nichols (37894)) writes:
>I contend that a better anaology would be the role of a building architect.
>A building architect is aware of the technical aspects of construction, but 
>his design effort is focused on how people interact with the building.  In a
>similar vein, the software architect should be focused on how people interact
>with the system.  Once the architecural design has been completed, the 
>technical engineers will apply their processes to insure that the building 
>(or software system) won't fall down.

I had just finished editing my post when I saw this: I also tried to cancel
my post but the software did not let me: at any rate this post answers my
question, though I might add that some emphasis is needed on user interface
design, which, IMHO, is one the most important products the software
architect should develop.
-- 
Michael Rothstein (Kent State U)|	If cars want to kill themselves,
(rothstei@cs.kent.edu)		|	that's their problem: what I can't
			 	|	understand is why they keep doing it
(std. disclaimer)		|	with people inside. (Mafalda (Quino))