Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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: Response to Andrews corrections Author: Kynan [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 17:19:37 05/04/01 Fri "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…" --------yeah, I thought Andrew or Kim could convert it like we did the analysis diagram so that Mick can add it to the index.html he will create from the index.doc --------I'd put the labels on the lines 'cos that's how they did it in the lecture notes - I think it looks better now though! "3.1 should there also be “command” and “GUI”" --------I thought about it, but then decided that's more on the implementation side, the Use Case doesn't care whether its palette or menu. We probably won't decide which is which until we start analysis/design “e-manual” ---------I agree, I was just leaving it like that until we sent Email#2 confirming that it was an electronic manual, not a material one. "2.3.1.2.3 should we also say specifically here that it may be manually triggered by the user" --------I think since this is the Editor section, no. I have put it into the Engine section 2.3.2.5.3 "2.3.1.2.3 & 2.3.1.2.6 are the same" --------I thought I'd done that, but I couldn't find it when I went back to look! It's corrected. "2.3.1.3.2 the word “should” – can we reword this? It sounds too loose…..asin…should but doesn’t matter if not….." --------Agreed. Changed to 'will' "2.3.1.6.1.1 – is this redundant (or is this what we want? Not sure…)" --------I'm not totally sure myself. I thought it was better to put it in, than not (tutor feedback seemed to be saying that a certain level of redundancy was the payoff for being thorough) "2.3.1.6.1.1 (and elsewhere) use of the word “string”" --------Agreed. Have changed it to text string(?) "2.3.1.6.1.4.1 can this also be optional if there are more than " --------Yep. Got confused with what I wanted to add to 'add Path'. Corrected. "2.3.1.6.9.2 Think about the GUI programs" --------Got carried away. Corrected. "2.3.1.6.1.0 Save as?" --------Yes that sounds better. Have added warning message in 2.3.1.6.10.3 "2.3.2.5.5.3 what about if it is already added?" --------That's in the Email#2 questions...can the same workflow be run/added multiple times "2.4.1.1.4 don’t know if we should be this specific –" --------I was scratching for stuff to put in this section. I've changed it. "2.4.1.2.3 where did this come from? " --------Better add it to the Email questions! "2.5 – not an issue?" --------This is in the Email#2 questions. --------I realised I hadn't finished changing the TOC! Now Done, however.. Cheers, Kynan [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]