Difference between revisions of "Ambiguity test"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Completeness++ + Source) |
(Goal.) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Oyster | {{Oyster | ||
|goal=test for clear, elegant, and intelligible requirements | |||
|stage=Sparkle | |stage=Sparkle | ||
|theme=Agile, Scrum | |theme=Agile, Scrum | ||
|context=preparing {{pbi}}s and other forms of requirements and specifications. | |context=preparing {{pbi}}s and other forms of requirements and specifications. | ||
|wish | |wish=You want clear, unambiguous and intelligible requirements, expressing needs and wishes. | ||
| | |so=Count the number of words that are potentially ambiguous, and collect and compare interpretations. | ||
|prologue=The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms—Plato | |prologue=The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms—Plato | ||
|wish=You want clear, unambiguous and intelligeble requirements, expressing needs and wishes. | |wish full=You want clear, unambiguous and intelligeble requirements, expressing needs and wishes. | ||
|background=Tom and Kai Gilb talk about ''User Stories: A Skeptical View''. | |background=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? | '''Question''': How many words in the 'requirement', “We want the most intuitive system possible.” are potentially ambiguous? | ||
'''Answer''': ''All.'' | '''Answer''': ''All.'' | ||
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. | ||
|therefore=Ask how many words in the requirement are potentially ambiguous. Next, collect and compare interpretations from different individuals. | |therefore full=Ask how many words in the requirement are potentially ambiguous. Next, collect and compare interpretations from different individuals. | ||
|new=An alternative way to prove unintelligibility is counting defects in relation to the following standard using the Spec QC review method. | |new=An alternative way to prove unintelligibility is counting defects in relation to the following standard using the Spec QC review method. | ||
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}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:14, 26 May 2013
- The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms—Plato
…preparing product backlog items and other forms of requirements and specifications.
✣ ✣ ✣
You want clear, unambiguous and intelligeble requirements, expressing needs and wishes.
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:
Ask how many words in the requirement are potentially ambiguous. Next, collect and compare interpretations from different individuals.
✣ ✣ ✣
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.
✣ ✣ ✣