Difference between revisions of "Ambiguity test"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Zeroth version.) |
m (Tim -> Tom) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Collect interpretations, and you will find everybody has quite different interpretations, none are identical. | Collect interpretations, and you will find everybody has quite different interpretations, none are identical. | ||
An alternative to prove unintelligibility is counting defects in relation to the | An alternative to prove unintelligibility is counting defects in relation to the | ||
|therefore=Ask how many words in the requirement are potentially ambiguous. Next, collect and compare interpretations from different individuals. | |therefore=Ask how many words in the requirement are potentially ambiguous. Next, collect and compare interpretations from different individuals. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Source | {{Source | ||
|author= | |author=Tom Gilb, Kai Gilb | ||
|coder={{mvs}} | |coder={{mvs}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 15:18, 30 December 2011
…preparing product backlog items and other forms of requirements and specifications.
✣ ✣ ✣
{{{wish full}}}
Tom and Kai Gilb talk about User Stories: A Skeptical View.
The 'requirement':
- "We want the most intuitive system possible."
- How many words are potentially ambiguous? All.
Collect interpretations, and you will find everybody has quite different interpretations, none are identical.
An alternative to prove unintelligibility is counting defects in relation to the
Therefore:
{{{therefore full}}}
✣ ✣ ✣
✣ ✣ ✣