SRS - queries, updates, suggestions -- Mick's Forum of Death

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

Subject:

SRS - queries, updates, suggestions

Author:
Dorman

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:07:03 05/04/01 Fri

Okay�.this is going to be long�.

Just with the Case diagrams�.I have moved the labels off the lines�how were you thinking of displaying these? Save as web page? � remember that we can�t submit *.doc files�

Otherwise that case diagrams content is very good

I have here some things that I noticed while reading the SRS�I haven�t changed anything�..I thought that I should leave that to one central person�ie the author�

3.1 should there also be �command� and �GUI�

2.1 �e-manual� is not defined yet�is sounds like someone out of Faulty Towers�.suggestion�either change it to �electronic manual� or put �e-manual� in the definitions

2.3.1.2.3 should we also say specifically here that it may be manually triggered by the user

2.3.1.2.3 & 2.3.1.2.6 are the same

2.3.1.3.2 the word �should� � can we reword this? It sounds too loose�..as in�should but doesn�t matter if not�..

2.3.1.6.1.1 � is this redundant (or is this what we want? Not sure�)

2.3.1.6.1.1 (and elsewhere) use of the word �string� � is this too techo or should we put it in the definitions�.ie�.my dad works with software companies doing specs�he doesn�t know what a string is�.

2.3.1.6.1.4.1 can this also be optional if there are more than one command�ie�do this�then that�and this�no if buts or maybes? Sure if there is an error then the program will handle it�.but does there HAVE to be a decision?

2.3.1.6.9.2 Think about the GUI programs you use�does this happen? I though that you could only select existing files�load dialog box? (for those of us doing 546)

2.3.1.6.1.0 Save as? Warning about saving over and existing file?

2.3.2.5.5.3 what about if it is already added?

2.4.1.1.4 don�t know if we should be this specific � the specs were only suggesting one way�we don�t have to do it this way�personally I would leave us some room here�rather just say that they will be different � and the exact nature will be determined later�..(just my thoughts)�..

2.4.1.2.3 where did this come from? (hehehe�please source it�) are we able to do this?

2.5 � not an issue?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]