Difference between revisions of "Ambiguity test"
(Completeness++ + Source) |
m (Typo.) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Rules: | Rules: | ||
#The specification will be clear enough to test. Not later, but in itself! Now! | #The specification will be clear enough to test. Not later, but in itself! Now! | ||
#The specification will be unambiguous to all intended readers, anywhere, anytime (including lawyers, and expert | #The specification will be unambiguous to all intended readers, anywhere, anytime (including lawyers, and expert witnesses in your lawsuit). | ||
Now using the spec, “We want the most intuitive system possible.”, how many of the words potentially violate those rules? {{author|Tom Gilb}}'s and {{author|Kai Gilb}}'s personal answer is 7, but even 1 disqualifies the spec as useful. | Now using the spec, “We want the most intuitive system possible.”, how many of the words potentially violate those rules? {{author|Tom Gilb}}'s and {{author|Kai Gilb}}'s personal answer is 7, but even 1 disqualifies the spec as useful. | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
*[http://www.gilb.com/dl461 Tom Gilb & Kai Gilb » Gilb Papers » User Stories: A Skeptical View] | *[http://www.gilb.com/dl461 Tom Gilb & Kai Gilb » Gilb Papers » User Stories: A Skeptical View] | ||
{{Source | {{Source | ||
|author=Tom Gilb, Kai Gilb | |author=Tom Gilb, Kai Gilb | ||
|coder={{mvs}} | |coder={{mvs}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 12:15, 4 April 2013
- The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms—Plato
…preparing product backlog items and other forms of requirements and specifications.
✣ ✣ ✣
{{{wish full}}}
Tom and Kai Gilb talk about User Stories: A Skeptical View. Question: How many words in the 'requirement', “We want the most intuitive system possible.” are potentially ambiguous? Answer: All. Collect interpretations, and you will find everybody has quite different interpretations, none are identical.
Therefore:
{{{therefore full}}}
✣ ✣ ✣
An alternative way to prove unintelligibility is counting defects in relation to the following standard using the Spec QC review method.
Rules:
- The specification will be clear enough to test. Not later, but in itself! Now!
- The specification will be unambiguous to all intended readers, anywhere, anytime (including lawyers, and expert witnesses in your lawsuit).
Now using the spec, “We want the most intuitive system possible.”, how many of the words potentially violate those rules? Tom Gilb's and Kai Gilb's personal answer is 7, but even 1 disqualifies the spec as useful.
✣ ✣ ✣