| 142 |
%vi skall använda templaten, och bifoga denna... |
%vi skall använda templaten, och bifoga denna... |
| 143 |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the |
| 144 |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
| 145 |
svar |
See appendix b. |
| 146 |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the |
| 147 |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
| 148 |
svar |
See appendix c. |
| 149 |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
| 150 |
questions:} |
questions:} |
| 151 |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be |
\begin{itemize} |
| 152 |
more complex and why?} |
\item Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be |
| 153 |
svar |
more complex and why? |
| 154 |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems can be expected to require more |
\item Which of the two systems can be expected to require more |
| 155 |
effort to be built? Why?} |
effort to be built? Why? |
| 156 |
svar |
\end{itemize} |
| 157 |
\textbf{Measuring designs} |
We expect design 2 to become more complex, both since |
| 158 |
|
it has more use cases, but also since it has higher |
| 159 |
|
values (in general) on the metrics suit. |
| 160 |
|
|
| 161 |
|
We expect design 2 to require more effort to build |
| 162 |
|
since it has more use cases and more actions (more |
| 163 |
|
functionality). Also since we feel that design 2 has a |
| 164 |
|
higher complexity. Also most of the values that we can |
| 165 |
|
get out from our metrics suit are greater, both in |
| 166 |
|
total and if we count them per use case. |
| 167 |
|
|
| 168 |
|
We feel that it is hard to make good (accurate) |
| 169 |
|
estimations based on this suit only and we also feel |
| 170 |
|
that while good estimations on use case level can be |
| 171 |
|
made using this suit, it is not a good thing to try to |
| 172 |
|
make estimations of the system as a whole only based |
| 173 |
|
on this information. |
| 174 |
|
\\ \\ \textbf{Measuring designs} |
| 175 |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the |
| 176 |
lecture.} |
lecture.} |
| 177 |
svar |
See appendix b. |
| 178 |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using |
| 179 |
the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
| 180 |
svar |
See appendix c. |
| 181 |
\subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite |
\subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite |
| 182 |
presented on the lecture.} |
presented on the lecture.} |
| 183 |
svar |
See appendix b. |
| 184 |
\subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java |
\subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java |
| 185 |
from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
| 186 |
svar |
See appendix c. |
| 187 |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
| 188 |
questions:} |
questions:} |
| 189 |
\subsubsection{Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class |
\begin{itemize} |
| 190 |
diagrams? Why?} |
\item Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class |
| 191 |
svar |
diagrams? Why? |
| 192 |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems is more complex? Why?} |
\item Which of the two systems is more complex? Why? |
| 193 |
svar |
\end{itemize} |
| 194 |
|
Svar |
| 195 |
\subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source |
\subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source |
| 196 |
code - is less time consuming?} |
code - is less time consuming?} |
| 197 |
svar |
svar |
| 247 |
metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
| 248 |
creating the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
creating the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
| 249 |
for your model.} |
for your model.} |
| 250 |
%huh? - jag kollar på denna... men vill du ha den så;) |
Assumptions: We are using an iterative development |
| 251 |
max 8 sidor (totalt; inte på denna;) |
process, we are using function points to measure progress, |
| 252 |
|
we are using a good configuration management tool, we are |
| 253 |
|
identifying risks before starting a project, we are, but |
| 254 |
|
not always using uml for our projects. |
| 255 |
|
|
| 256 |
|
Since we are working on web-based applications we also |
| 257 |
|
assumed that we are selling those to a customer. This made |
| 258 |
|
us make a value based quality view. This made us decide |
| 259 |
|
that usability, lernability, reusability, maintainability, reliability, |
| 260 |
|
is the most important external attributes. The internal |
| 261 |
|
attributes are not considered as important, other than to |
| 262 |
|
help up the external. Customer satisfaction does supersede |
| 263 |
|
this thou. The external attributes has the following |
| 264 |
|
impact on customer satisfaction: \\ |
| 265 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} |
| 266 |
|
\hline |
| 267 |
|
Attribute & Importance & Role \\ \hline |
| 268 |
|
Usability & High & |
| 269 |
|
Decides if the customer fells that he may use\\ |
| 270 |
|
& & the product or not. The more usable the product\\ |
| 271 |
|
& & becomes, the higher value it gets (and thereby\\ |
| 272 |
|
& & higher quality). \\ \hline |
| 273 |
|
%hmmm, borde finnas nått bättre sätt... |
| 274 |
|
Learnability & High & |
| 275 |
|
The quicker the end-user can learn to use the \\ |
| 276 |
|
& & program, the quicker he feels the value of the\\ |
| 277 |
|
& & program and does need it. This makes the \\ |
| 278 |
|
& & customer feels a gain from buying our product \\ \hline |
| 279 |
|
Reusability & Medium & |
| 280 |
|
This is only important if using agreements like\\ |
| 281 |
|
& & ``avtal 90'' or similar that gives us the freedom\\ |
| 282 |
|
& & of the developed artifacts, and may use them in\\ |
| 283 |
|
& & projects to come. If the customer has no demands\\ |
| 284 |
|
& & on this, and will own the artifacts then it is \\ |
| 285 |
|
& & not taken into consideration.\\ \hline |
| 286 |
|
Maintainability & Medium & |
| 287 |
|
This is only important if we are using the \\ |
| 288 |
|
& to low & |
| 289 |
|
reusability from above. And only to support that\\ |
| 290 |
|
& & purpose. Otherwise this would not have been a \\ |
| 291 |
|
& & issue at all. \\ \hline |
| 292 |
|
Reliability & High & |
| 293 |
|
This is important since a reliable program is \\ |
| 294 |
|
& & seen as having a higher value. \\ \hline |
| 295 |
|
\end{tabular} \\ \\ |
| 296 |
|
Internal attributes are only important in order to gain |
| 297 |
|
the external attributes. |
| 298 |
\end{document} |
\end{document} |
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log
| 
Patch