Re: Requirements: one doc or two?

Agreed. We need to keep the specs. separate.


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
To: Andy Heath <andyheath@axelrod.plus.com>
Cc: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Indie UI
            <public-indie-ui@w3.org>
Date: 12/17/2013 04:09 PM
Subject: Re: Requirements: one doc or two?



I don’t have a strong opinion for one or two *requirements* documents, as
long as the specifications can remain two separate documents.

On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Andy Heath <andyheath@axelrod.plus.com> wrote:

> I am personally in favour of a single document for this. The main reason
is that I suspect we *will* find scenarios that are met by a combination of
Events and User Context requirements - at least they will be met by the use
of both - not completely sure its requirements from both.
>
> A second argument is: if we do it with one document we *can* write stuff
that goes across them both if needed (but we don't have to) - its much
harder to do that with two separate docs. One doc gives us more flexibility
later (though that seems counter-intuitive, it is the case imho).
>
> andy
>> I'm starting work on a formal requirements doc for IndieUI, based on the
>> work we did at the last Face to Face meeting, and wanted to get input on
>> whether we expect to publish a single requirements document for all of
>> IndieUI, or separate ones for Events and User Context. I was expecting
>> to cross this bridge later, but it affects the name of the source I
>> would commit to the repository, so would like to answer sooner.
>>
>> Regardless of the decision we take for the formal requirements, I think
>> we would continue to work on the two sets of requirements mostly
>> separately, as we've been doing. So I don't see this affecting current
work.
>>
>> Advantages of putting the two sets of requirements in one doc:
>>
>>  * We show a unified plan for IndieUI 1.0;
>>  * It's easier to show how scenarios are met by a combination of Events
>>    and User Context requirements - if there are cases where that's
>>    valuable;
>>  * The doc can still be organized into sub-sections to separate the
>>    requirements somewhat;
>>  * We only have one formal deliverable to push through the bureaucracy;
>>  * This will encourage us to update the requirements more often, since
>>    an update to either Events or User Context triggers a republication
>>    of the entire set.
>>
>> Advantages of separting them:
>>
>>  * If Events and User Context are quite different from each other, it's
>>    less confusing to have separate requirements;
>>  * It's easier to work on them on completely separate timelines;
>>  * They can focus on meeting different scenarios.
>>
>> I lean towards having a single requirements document (the first version
>> of which would only have Events requirements). But it's not a strong
>> leaning, I want to get other preferences.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michael Cooper
>> Web Accessibility Specialist
>> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
>> E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
>> Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
>>
>
>
> andy
> andyheath@axelrod.plus.com
> My daughter is raising money for a charity that is sending her to
> Malawi, Africa to support AIDS orphans. Should you wish to donate
> to the charity you can do so on http://gemmaafrica.org.uk

> --
> __________________
> Andy Heath
> http://axelafa.com

>
>