Despite protestations to the contrary, nobody--certainly not I--would
advocate that you don't need to communicate what needs to be implemented.
 It's a question of how it is done, and traditional func specs are but one,
very poor (IMO) way to do so.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:12 AM, paul bryan <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think the
> dimension that segments the responders is the degree to which the
> people writing the code are separated from decisions about design, in
> a physical distance, process, or organizational sense.
>

This can be true, but Scott
Ambler<http://www.ambysoft.com/onlineWritings.html>has been
researching, thinking about, and writing about the different
contexts in which Agile plays, and specifically distributed and large teams
via his agil...@scale
blog<https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/roller-ui/rendering/feed/ambler/entries/atom>.
 His thinking on docs in
general<http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/agileDocumentation.htm#CriticalPoints>is
good, and he specifically cautions
against 
hand-offs<http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/agileDocumentation.htm#EffectiveDocumentationHandoffs>.
 I'm not saying he's the end all authority or best guy for software process
in general, but he's probably the most prolific, well-researched, and
balanced speaker and writer on the subject of Agile.  Point is that not
wanting to do func specs doesn't have to be related to the elements you
mention.

Nor would I hold up Agile as the end all in terms of the way to make
software, either, but there can be a lot of synergy in terms of aspirations
between it and UX/XD/IxD.  In the last few years, it seems that the
UX/XD/IxD world has crossed a threshold where Agile is now more assumed than
less; I think people are seeing <http://www.agileexperiencedesign.org/> the
synergy and, if nothing else, the reality that Agile (broadly speaking) is
where most of software dev is these days.  I suspect as in-house/FTE
UX/XD/IxD competency becomes more and more common, this trend will only
continue because hand offs necessitated by consultancy will decline.

Anyways, I think the difference between doing traditional func specs and
other docs lies more in familiarity and comfort zones.  We have quite a
heritage of functional specs in software, and people are loath to change,
even though the software industry at large has been going that way for over
a decade.


I should maybe be clearer that I'm talking about "functional specifications"
in the traditional sense of function-centric, often componentized,
functional descriptions of what the *system shall do*.  I think even
traditional use case diagrams and use case scenarios are not ideal, even
though they're at least trying to focus on use rather than just system
functions.  The problem is that usually they're still
function/system-centric and the user is this amorphous "actor" who is
basically just there to serve as an external entity that is acting on the
system--the centricity is still systemic and functional when it should be on
the people and purpose of the software.  And they are only marginally better
at helping normal people grasp what the end product will be like.

When I think, talk, and write about how to do software, I'm pretty
passionate about it and am concerned, in a forum like this, about the
*best*way to do software.  That means in some ideal world somewhere,
but best
practices always have to be contextualized.  The thing is, there are better
alternatives to func specs even in the most distributed and diverse teams; I
can't imagine a scenario where they're better than alternatives except in
the case that people just don't want to change or just don't know any
better.  That's why I was rather hyperbolic in my previous reply--to make a
point.

-a
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [email protected]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

Reply via email to