--- 02/assignment2.tex 2003/12/11 21:20:48 1.5 +++ 02/assignment2.tex 2003/12/12 16:00:22 1.8 @@ -142,38 +142,56 @@ %vi skall använda templaten, och bifoga denna... \subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} - svar + See appendix b. \subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} - svar + See appendix c. \subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following questions:} - \subsubsection{Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be - more complex and why?} - svar - \subsubsection{Which of the two systems can be expected to require more - effort to be built? Why?} - svar - \textbf{Measuring designs} + \begin{itemize} + \item Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be + more complex and why? + \item Which of the two systems can be expected to require more + effort to be built? Why? + \end{itemize} + We expect design 2 to become more complex, both since + it has more use cases, but also since it has higher + values (in general) on the metrics suit. + + We expect design 2 to require more effort to build + since it has more use cases and more actions (more + functionality). Also since we feel that design 2 has a + higher complexity. Also most of the values that we can + get out from our metrics suit are greater, both in + total and if we count them per use case. + + We feel that it is hard to make good (accurate) + estimations based on this suit only and we also feel + that while good estimations on use case level can be + made using this suit, it is not a good thing to try to + make estimations of the system as a whole only based + on this information. + \\ \\ \textbf{Measuring designs} \subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} - svar + See appendix b. \subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} - svar + See appendix c. \subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} - svar + See appendix b. \subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} - svar + See appendix c. \subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following questions:} - \subsubsection{Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class - diagrams? Why?} - svar - \subsubsection{Which of the two systems is more complex? Why?} - svar + \begin{itemize} + \item Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class + diagrams? Why? + \item Which of the two systems is more complex? Why? + \end{itemize} + Svar \subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source code - is less time consuming?} svar @@ -229,6 +247,52 @@ metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while creating the quality model. Provide an explanatory text for your model.} -%huh? - jag kollar på denna... men vill du ha den så;) - max 8 sidor (totalt; inte på denna;) + Assumptions: We are using an iterative development + process, we are using function points to measure progress, + we are using a good configuration management tool, we are + identifying risks before starting a project, we are, but + not always using uml for our projects. + + Since we are working on web-based applications we also + assumed that we are selling those to a customer. This made + us make a value based quality view. This made us decide + that usability, lernability, reusability, maintainability, reliability, + is the most important external attributes. The internal + attributes are not considered as important, other than to + help up the external. Customer satisfaction does supersede + this thou. The external attributes has the following + impact on customer satisfaction: \\ + \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} + \hline + Attribute & Importance & Role \\ \hline + Usability & High & + Decides if the customer fells that he may use\\ + & & the product or not. The more usable the product\\ + & & becomes, the higher value it gets (and thereby\\ + & & higher quality). \\ \hline +%hmmm, borde finnas nått bättre sätt... + Learnability & High & + The quicker the end-user can learn to use the \\ + & & program, the quicker he feels the value of the\\ + & & program and does need it. This makes the \\ + & & customer feels a gain from buying our product \\ \hline + Reusability & Medium & + This is only important if using agreements like\\ + & & ``avtal 90'' or similar that gives us the freedom\\ + & & of the developed artifacts, and may use them in\\ + & & projects to come. If the customer has no demands\\ + & & on this, and will own the artifacts then it is \\ + & & not taken into consideration.\\ \hline + Maintainability & Medium & + This is only important if we are using the \\ + & to low & + reusability from above. And only to support that\\ + & & purpose. Otherwise this would not have been a \\ + & & issue at all. \\ \hline + Reliability & High & + This is important since a reliable program is \\ + & & seen as having a higher value. \\ \hline + \end{tabular} \\ \\ + Internal attributes are only important in order to gain + the external attributes. \end{document}