| 154 |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems can be expected to require more |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems can be expected to require more |
| 155 |
effort to be built? Why?} |
effort to be built? Why?} |
| 156 |
svar |
svar |
| 157 |
\textbf{Measuring designs} |
\\ \\ \textbf{Measuring designs} |
| 158 |
\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 |
| 159 |
lecture.} |
lecture.} |
| 160 |
svar |
svar |
| 229 |
metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
| 230 |
creating the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
creating the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
| 231 |
for your model.} |
for your model.} |
| 232 |
%huh? - jag kollar på denna... men vill du ha den så;) |
Assumptions: We are using an iterative development |
| 233 |
max 8 sidor (totalt; inte på denna;) |
process, we are using function points to measure progress, |
| 234 |
|
we are using a good configuration management tool, we are |
| 235 |
|
identifying risks before starting a project, we are, but |
| 236 |
|
not always using uml for our projects. |
| 237 |
|
|
| 238 |
|
Since we are working on web-based applications we also |
| 239 |
|
assumed that we are selling those to a customer. This made |
| 240 |
|
us make a value based quality view. This made us decide |
| 241 |
|
that usability, lernability, reusability, maintainability, reliability, |
| 242 |
|
is the most important external attributes. The internal |
| 243 |
|
attributes are not considered as important, other than to |
| 244 |
|
help up the external. Customer satisfaction does supersede |
| 245 |
|
this thou. The external attributes has the following |
| 246 |
|
impact on customer satisfaction: \\ |
| 247 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} |
| 248 |
|
\hline |
| 249 |
|
Attribute & Importance & Role \\ \hline |
| 250 |
|
Usability & High & |
| 251 |
|
Decides if the customer fells that he may use\\ |
| 252 |
|
& & the product or not. The more usable the product\\ |
| 253 |
|
& & becomes, the higher value it gets (and thereby\\ |
| 254 |
|
& & higher quality). \\ \hline |
| 255 |
|
%hmmm, borde finnas nått bättre sätt... |
| 256 |
|
Learnability & High & |
| 257 |
|
The quicker the end-user can learn to use the \\ |
| 258 |
|
& & program, the quicker he feels the value of the\\ |
| 259 |
|
& & program and does need it. This makes the \\ |
| 260 |
|
& & customer feels a gain from buying our product \\ \hline |
| 261 |
|
Reusability & Medium & |
| 262 |
|
This is only important if using agreements like\\ |
| 263 |
|
& & ``avtal 90'' or similar that gives us the freedom\\ |
| 264 |
|
& & of the developed artifacts, and may use them in\\ |
| 265 |
|
& & projects to come. If the customer has no demands\\ |
| 266 |
|
& & on this, and will own the artifacts then it is \\ |
| 267 |
|
& & not taken into consideration.\\ \hline |
| 268 |
|
Maintainability & Medium & |
| 269 |
|
This is only important if we are using the \\ |
| 270 |
|
& to low & |
| 271 |
|
reusability from above. And only to support that\\ |
| 272 |
|
& & purpose. Otherwise this would not have been a \\ |
| 273 |
|
& & issue at all. \\ \hline |
| 274 |
|
Reliability & High & |
| 275 |
|
This is important since a reliable program is \\ |
| 276 |
|
& & seen as having a higher value. \\ \hline |
| 277 |
|
\end{tabular} \\ \\ |
| 278 |
|
Internal attributes are only important in order to gain |
| 279 |
|
the external attributes. |
| 280 |
\end{document} |
\end{document} |
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log
| 
Patch