Related
Most of us who do any amount of work in web apps/web design have seen ads for PSD to XHTML conversion services. Provided with a cash outlay and a source PSD file, these services claim to return professional-quality XHTML/CSS within a few days.
Coding up the XHTML/CSS for any project is often the most time consuming portion of the project. If these services really do produce professional-quality code, then even at a cost of several hundred dollars per page, it would be financially beneficial for me to use them.
So, what's your experience with these services? Quality code? Junk? Cross-browser functionality and graceful degradation? Etc...
Thanks so much! :)
I may be a bit biased being that I come from a front end development background, but I'll say this...
The bottom line is the person who does your front end has to:
A. Be competent
B. Give a damn
C. Take the effort to go through the tedious process of making sure everything is pixel perfect, semantically correct, and engineered to work well with jQuery enhancements.
Do you think that will happen for $99? Build it yourself or rewrite it later when it becomes an issue and you have to. A good front end takes planning just like a good back end.
Choose one that makes examples of their work available. For example, this company has done good work in my limited experience with them, and makes code samples available: http://www.psd2html.com/examples.html
Based on samples of their work, you can decide for yourself whether or not their work is what you consider usable and reliable. Otherwise, it's really too subjective a question for us to answer for you.
I'm working on a 10 page web site with a database back-end. There are 500+ objects in use, trying to implement the MVP pattern in ASP.Net. I'm tracing the code-execution from a single-page, my finger has been on F-11 in Visual Studio for about 40 minutes, there seems to be no end, possibly 1000+ method calls for one web page! If it was just 50 objects that would be one thing, however, code execution snakes through all these objects just like millions of ants frantically woring in their giant dirt mound house, riddled with object tunnels. Hence, a new anti-pattern is born : AntFarm.
AntFarm is also known as "OO-Madnes", "OO-Fever", OO-ADD, or simply design-pattern junkie.
This is not the first time I've seen this, nor my associates at other companies. It seems that this style is being actively propogated, or in any case is a misunderstanding of the numerous OO/DP gospels going around...
I'd like to introduce an anti-pattern to the anti-pattern: GST or "Get Stuff Done" AKA "Get Sh** done" AKA GRD (GetRDone). This pattern focused on just what it says, getting stuff done, in a simple way. I may try to outline it more in a later post, or please share your ideas on this antidote pattern.
Anyway, I'm in the midst of a great example of AntFarm anti-pattern as I write (as a bonus, there is no documentation or comments). Please share you thoughts on how this anti-pattern has become so prevelant, how we can avoid it, and how can one undo or deal with this pattern in a live system one must work with!
I think that Parnas pretty much nailed it in On the Criteria to be used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Each module should hide a design decision, one that may change in the future. In general, a module with nothing to hide is usually just overhead. He wasn't talking about classes exactly, but I think the reasoning still applies.
If is is indeed due to over design (and it sounds like it) then here are some synonyms for you:
Gas Factory
Rube Goldberg machine
Heath Robinson contraption
But my personal name for this "trying too F#$%3n hard". My condolences.
Cheers
Adrian
Many files where one would do. Nasty. 500 objects for 10 webpages seems a crazy ratio.
Have you considered running code analysis on the solution? Might give you some interesting stats to fight back with.
Also I'd call the anti-anti-pattern KISS.
Thanks Glomek the article is for an interesting problem-space, going to the core of what is OO, i.e. how to design your objects...for success or failure, thanks for the link.
Oh yeah, the anti-pattern design could be called "Ant Hill", that's a clearer description I think. I do believe it is quite prevelant right now, and seems to be growing...I'm still wondering how we can get away from it in general, and write clearer, simpler code that gets the job done with just the minimal complexity needed.
The problem here is that your design pattern is, itself, non-OO. Start with a non-OO pattern, try to implement it as "objects", you end up with a mess.
Just because the system is written in an OOPL doesn't make the system OO.
If you consider that an ant farm is an efficient way to explore a complex problem space (the ant farm) through the use of simple agents (the ants) then this starts to look decidedly less anti-patternish.
Critiques of OOP based on the complexity of 'fitting it all in your head' always ignore that (a) its hard to fit all of anything in your head (regardless of whether its OO or not) and (b) that OO actively reduces the need to have it all in your head anyway
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 3 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I have been working on a list for a while that helps me share the why of programming approach and thought as much as how to do something.
For this, I wanted to build a list of things that are:
best practice,
best thought,
best approach...
that help a programmer's ability to analyze, think, approach, solve and implement in the most effective way.
I have seen dozens of incredibly valuable comments in questions throughout Stack Overflow, but I couldn't find a place where we keep them together. There is the most controversial opinion on Stack Overflow. However, I'm just looking for sagely insights that can be shared and help my team, and I approach and solve problems better through better programming.
Hopefully this can be one place to gather the one or two liners that are concise, profound and easy to share, repeat, review. If we keep it to one rule per answer it might be easiest to vote up/down.
I'll start with the first.
DRY - Don't Repeat Yourself - In code, comments or documentation.
Always leave the code a little better than when you found it.
Code does not exist until entered into a versioning control system.
Don't be afraid to admit "I don't know" and ask.
10 minutes asking someone could save a day pulling your hair out!
KISS - Keep it simple, stupid.
Pick the simplest solution that works.
Don't make things (too) complicated before they need to be.
Just because everyone else is using some complicated framework to solve their problem, doesn't mean you have to.
Don't reinvent the wheel
If there ought to be a function for it in the core library - there probably is.
Maintainability is important.
Write code as if the person who will end up maintaining it is crazy and knows where you live.
Someone else won't fix it.
If a problem comes to your attention, take ownership long enough to ensure it will be taken care of one way or another.
Don't optimize unless there's a demonstrable problem.
Most of the time when people try to optimize code before it's been proved necessary, they'll spend a lot of resources, make the code harder to read and maintain, and achieve no noticeable effect. Sometimes they'll even make it worse.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil."
- Donald Knuth
How hard can it be?
Don't let any problem intimidate you.
Don't Gather Requirements -- Dig for Them
Requirements rarely lie on the surface. They're buried deep beneath layers of assumptions, misconceptions, and politics
via The Pragmatic Programmer
Follow the SOLID principles:
Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
There should never be more than one reason for a class to change.
Open-Closed Principle (OCP)
Software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.)
should be open for extension, but closed for
modification.
Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)
Functions that use pointers or references to base
classes must be able to use objects of derived classes
without knowing it.
Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)
Clients should not be forced to depend upon interfaces
that they do not use.
Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
A. High level modules should not depend upon low
level modules. Both should depend upon abstractions.
B. Abstractions should not depend upon details. Details
should depend upon abstractions.
Best Practice: Use your brain
Don't follow any trend/principle/pattern without thinking about it
I think almost everything that is listed under "The Zen of Python" applies for every "Rules of Programming Mindset" list. Start with 'python -c "import this"':
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than right now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Test Driven Development (TDD) makes coders sleep better at night
Just to clarify: Some people seem to think TDD is just an incompetent coder's way of limping from A to B without borking everything up too much, and that if you know what you're doing, that means there is no need for (unit) testing methodologies. That completely misses the point of Test Driven Development. TDD is about three (update: apparently four) things:
Refactoring magic. Having a full set of tests means you can make otherwise insane refactoring stunts, juggling the entire structure of your application without missing even one of the two hundred crazy subtle side effects that result from it. Even the best programmers are reluctant to refactor their core classes and interfaces without good (unit) test coverage, because it's damn near impossible to track down all the little 'ripple effects' it causes without them.
Detecting pitfalls early. If you are writing tests the right way, it means forcing yourself to consider all the fringe cases. Often, this leads to better design choices once the actual development begins, because the coder has already considered some of the trickier situations that may call for a different inheritance structure or a more flexible design pattern. The need for these changes is often not apparent - or intuitive - during initial planning and analysis, but those exact changes can make the application much easier to extend and maintain down the line.
Ensuring that tests get written. TDD requires you to write the tests before writing the code. Sure, that can be a pain in the ass, since writing tests is tedious compared to writing actual code - and often takes longer, too. However, doing so is the only way to make sure the tests will be written at all. If you think you'll remember to write the tests once the code is done, you're almost always wrong.
Forcing you to write better code. Since TDD forces all code to be testable (you don't write code before there is a test for it), it requires you write more decoupled code so that you can test the components in isolation. So TDD forces you to write better code. (Thanks, Esko)
Google before you ask your colleague and interrupt his coding.
Less code is better than more, as long as it makes more sense than lots of code.
Habits of the lazy coder
The first time you are asked to do something, do it (right).
The second time you are asked to do it, make a tool that does it automatically.
And the third time, if the tool doesn't cut it, design a domain specific language for generating more tools.
(not to be taken too seriously)
Be a Catalyst for Change
You can't force change on people. Instead, show them how the future might be and help them participate in creating it.
via The Pragmatic Programmer
Don't Panic When Debugging
Take a deep breath and THINK! about what could be causing the bug.
via The Pragmatic Programmer
You may copy and paste to get it working, but you may not leave it that way.
Duplicated code is an intermediate step, not a final product.
It's Both What You Say and the Way You Say It
There's no point in having great ideas if you don't communicate them effectively.
via The Pragmatic Programmer
Always code as if the person who ends up maintaining your code is a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
From: Coding Horror
Build Breaker Buys Lunch
Publish Early, Publish Often
Build it correct first. Make it fast second.
Frequently conduct code reviews
Code review and consequently refactoring is an ongoing task. Here is a few goodies about code review in my opinion:
It improves code quality.
It helps refactor reusable codes into reusable libraries.
It helps you learn from your fellow developers.
It helps you learn from your mistakes and refresh your memory about a genius code you have written before.
Anything that could affect how the application runs should be treated as code, and that means putting it in version control. Especially build scripts and database schema and data (.sql) files.
Take part in open source development
If you are using open source code in your projects, remember to post your bugfixes and improvements back to the community. It's not a development best practice per se, but it's definitely a programmer mindset to strive for.
Understand the tools you use
Don't use a pattern until you've understood why you're using it; don't use a tool without knowing why; don't rely on your framework or language designer always being right for your situation, but also don't assume they're wrong until proven to be!
Convention over Configuration
Especially where conventions are strong and some flexibility can be sacrificed.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Does the functional spec help or hinder your expectations? Do programmers who practice the waterfall methodology, are they open to functional specs? I'm a web designer/developer working with a team of 5 programmers and would like to write a functional spec to explain what we need, so that when I begin my work - I know we are working towards the same goal.
I won't start any freelance project until I've got a design spec and functional spec written up and signed off. There's too much room for rogue clients to nickel and dime you to death if you don't have it. The functional spec allows you to stay on target/focused and gives you a natural check list to work to.
If there's no functional spec then you get all the "what ifs" starting to creep in and developers thinking - you know, this would be useful, and it'll only take me an hour. Sure an hour to code the prototype and get it basically working - plus the day to design all the tests and make sure all test cases are covered, then another couple of days to iron out all the bugs, then time to write the documentation. There's far too much room for what seems like a trivial addition to be inserted when there's no spec. You've no doubt heard of the infamous "scope creep". There's also far too much room for clients to say "that's not what I wanted..." when you deliver it and try and wriggle out of paying you.
If you've got the design spec and the functional spec written up ahead of the development and both you and the client have signed off that your understanding of not only the basic details but all the nuances of the language used is one and the same - only then can the real work begin.
There are a couple of anecdotes out there the first is quite true, while the other is a common misconception:
Software development is only 15% about the code, the rest is resource/people management.
It takes 20% of the time to complete the first 80% of the project and the remaining 80% of the time to complete the last 20%.
The misconception is that a working prototype is 80% of the way there - don't be fooled, it is not. So it's easy for a client to say "what's taking so long, I thought you were almost done!" and then quibble that they're paying too much for something that should've been finished months ago. Some of the design methodologies out there really lend themselves well to this popular misconception. The waterfall design methodology is one of them if it's not used correctly.
My view is make sure your understanding is the same, both sign off. Set milestones and make the client very aware at the outset that prototypes are a long way from the completion of the project and set expectations right from the outset as to what those milestones are and when the client can expect to see them delivered.
For project managers of development teams documentation and expectations are everything. You can't live without it, it's the only form of recourse you have against "That's not what I said" or "That's not what I meant" and ergo "I'm not paying you".
I learned from a lot of mistakes made by far more qualified developers than me and saw what it did to them. The two most important documents for your project are the design spec and the functional spec. Don't leave home without them or it can [or most likely will] come back and bite you in the ass.
Addendum re: User Stories:
An additional note about user stories is that they're great for what they are. They should be included in your functional specification but shouldn't be your functional specification.
A user story only describes a single task. It is very lightweight and doesn't contain excessive detail. As the common recommendations go, it should fit on a 3x5 card...if you as a project manager handed me a 3x5 card and told me to write a piece of software based on what I read, no doubt it would be handed to the user at the end and they'd tell the project manager that's not what they wanted.
You need a far greater level of detail in a functional spec. It shouldn't be limited to basic workflows. A functional spec is a whole bunch of user stories along with notes on interpretation of those user stories, improvements that can be made to them, common tasks that can be combined to improve efficiency. The list goes on.
So user stories are a good beginning, but they're not a replacement for a functional spec, they're bullet points in a functional spec.
I work with mostly the Waterfall model, and solely with functional specs. When working on my own (where I can set my own model and program any way I want) I start by writing up functional specs and then implementing them. It gives me a much better idea of the size and scope of the work, helps me estimate the time involved, and helps ensure that I don't miss anything.
Also, you can pass this document to:
Users so that they can make their requirements clear
Developers to create the functionality
Testers to make sure they are testing the right thing
Architects so that they can analyze the requirements
Using functional requirements over user stories is a matter of preference and the scope of the project. If you have a small user base, then you may be able to get away with user stories (which outline various event sequences the user might do), but for larger projects, you should use functional requirements as they have more detail and lead to fewer misunderstandings. Think of them as a means of communication with all people involved in the project.
Frankly, the Functional Specifications should already be part of your Big-M (Waterfall) methodology. Your functional specification is WHAT you are going to build; not necessarily how you are going to build it (which would be your detailed design/specification and the next step in the waterfall).
If you haven't written one yet, stop what you are doing and write one. You are just waste time if you do otherwise. You can start here with Joel's article.
It took me more than 10 years to get it beat into my head to write a functional spec before doing any code. Now I will write one for anything taking more than a day to write. The level of detail, and level of assumptions should be as much as needed to clearly define what needs to be done and communicate it to others (or remind yourself), anything beyond that is a waste.
Others prefer User Stories ... which is fine too, as long as you do some kind of planning.
Another way to accomplish this is using user stories
I find well-written functional specs very useful. A well organized functional specification can also help organize your tests (many-to-many mapping from individual requirements to test cases).
<p style="tongue: in-cheek">They also prove useful for finger-pointing in larger organizations (The requirements were inaccurate! The implementation didn't follow the requirement! QA didn't properly test this requirement! etc.)</p>
I'll second Codeslave's reference to Painless Functional Specification. It's a good series of articles on specifications. See also this Stackoverflow post for a discussion on what content to put into functional specs.
I've done a few large projects, including one with some hundereds of person-years of total effort. As a project team gets larger the number of informal communication channels goes up with a quadratic upper bound. Without a spec this informal communication mechanism is the only way things can get communicated. With a spec, the communication channels approach a hub-and-spokes, making the growth more like a linear function of the project team size.
A spec is really the only scalable way to to get the team 'singing off the same hymn sheet'. There should be some review and negotiation about the spec, but ultimately someone has to take ownership of this to avoid the project becoming a free-for-all.
I think they're a lovely idea, and should be tried.
Just a few comments on some of the answers here...
First of all, I do believe that a good spec document is important for any moderatly complex requirement (and definitly for highly complex ones). But make sure it is a good spec i.e. don't just state the obvious (like one poster already mentioned) but also don't leave out those parts that may seem trivial to you (or even the developers) since you might have more knowledge of that part of the system than some others involved (e.g. testers or documenters) which will appreciate the otherwise "missing bits".
And if your spec is good, it will get read - in my experience (and I've written and read lots of specs over the last years) it's the bad specs that get dumped and the good ones that get followed.
Concerning user stories (or sometimes also called use cases): I think these are important to get an idea of the scenario, but they usually can't replace the details (e.g. screen mockups, how where and if a feature is configurable, data model, migration issues etc.) so you'll probably need both for more complex requirements.
In my experience, functional specs have a fine line between not saying enough and saying too much.
If they don't say enough, then they leave areas open to misunderstanding.
If they say too much, they don't leave enough "wiggle room" to improve the solution.
And they should always be open to a process of revision.
It depends on the functional specification. I've had functional specifications where the writer knew the system inside and out, and wrote the specification as such, and I've had other writers write it with just what they expected to see as a user.
With the former, it's easier because I know exactly what I need to write and where I need to write it, but it limits how easily I can refactor the existing code, since estimates took into account just this feature, and not refactoring existing code that it touches.
With the latter, I have freedom to refactor (so long as end functionality is the same), but if it's a system I'm unfamiliar with, the time estimate is harder to make.
Overall, I love functional specifications -- I also like to remind people that they're written on paper that bends, and as such, should be flexible.
Whether you call them functional specs, business requirements, or user stories, they are all very beneficial to the development process.
The issue with them comes when they are chiseled in stone and used as a device to pass blame around when the system utimately doesn't fit with the user's real needs. I prefer to use the functionals or requirements as a starting point for an iterative process not as the bible for exactly how the system will look when it is complete. Things change, and users typically don't have an understanding of what they want until they have something (a working prototype possibly) in their hands that they can work with instead of conceptualizing on a piece of paper how it will function in the real world. The most successful projects I've implemented were ones where the development team and the users were closely aligned and were able to rapidly turn around changes instead of holding people to what they wanted on a piece of paper six months ago.
Of course this process wouldn't work if you were in a fixed-bid type of situation as one of the earlier answers pointed out.
One interesting substitute for a func spec or user stories that I have seen advocated is to write a user manual for the software first.
Even if this is only notional (i.e. if you do not intend to ship any manual - which you probably shouldn't as nobody will read it), it can be a useful and reasonably lightweight way to reach a common understanding of what the software will do and look like. And it forces you to do the design up front.
I've found that even if you write Functional Specs a lot of the detail is sometimes lost on the person you are trying to address. Now if a Functional Spec is written along with some kind of UI mockup, that makes a huge difference. UI mockups not only show the user what you are envisioning, it also triggers users into remembering things they wouldn't have thought off in the first place.
I have seen and written many specs, some were very good, most weren't. The main thing that they all had in common is that they were never followed. They all had cobwebs on them by the 3rd day of coding.
Write the spec if you want, the best time to do it is at the end of the project. It will be useless for developers to follow but it will at least be an accurate representation of what was done (I know- not really a spec). But don't expect the spec to get the code written for you. That is the real job. If you don't know what to write talk to your stakeholders and users and get some good user stories and then get on with it.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
How do you go about the requirements gathering phase? Does anyone have a good set of guidelines or tips to follow? What are some good questions to ask the stakeholders?
I am currently working on a new project and there are a lot of unknowns. I am in the process of coming up with a list of questions to ask the stakeholders. However I cant help but to feel that I am missing something or forgetting to ask a critical question.
You're almost certainly missing something. A lot of things, probably. Don't worry, it's ok. Even if you remembered everything and covered all the bases stakeholders aren't going to be able to give you very good, clear requirements without any point of reference. The best way to do this sort of thing is to get what you can from them now, then take that and give them something to react to. It can be a paper prototype, a mockup, version 0.1 of the software, whatever. Then they can start telling you what they really want.
See obligatory comic below...
In general, I try and get a feel for the business model my customer/client is trying to emulate with the application they want built. Are we building a glorified forms processor? Are we retrieving data from multiple sources in a single application to save time? Are we performing some kind of integration?
Once the general businesss model is established, I then move to the "must" and "must nots" for the application to dictate what data I can retrieve, who can perform what functions, etc.
Usually if you can get the customer to explain their model or workflow, you can move from there and find additional key questions.
The one question I always make sure to ask in some form or another is "What is the trickiest/most annoying thing you have to do when doing X. Typically the answer to that reveals the craziest business/data rule you'll have to implement.
Hope this helps!
Steve Yegge talks fun but there is money to be made in working out what other people's requirements are so i'd take his article with a pinch of salt.
Requirements gathering is incredibly tough because of the manner in which communication works. Its a four step process that is lossy in each step.
I have an idea in my head
I transform this into words and pictures
You interpret the pictures and words
You paint an image in your own mind of what my original idea was like
And humans fail miserably at this with worrying frequency through their adorable imperfections.
Agile does right in promoting iterative development. Getting early versions out to the client is important in identifying what features are most important (what ships in 0.1 - 0.5 ish), helps to keep you both on the right track in terms of how the application will work and quickly identifies the hidden features that you will miss.
The two main problem scenarios are the two ends of the scales:
Not having a freaking clue about what you are doing - get some domain experts
Having too many requirements - feature pit. - Question, cull (prioritise ;) ) features and use iterative development
Yegge does well in pointing out that domain experts are essential to produce good requirements because they know the business and have worked in it. They can help identify the core desire of the client and will help explain how their staff will use the system and what is important to the staff.
Alternatives and additions include trying to do the job yourself to get into the mindset or having a client staff member occasionally on-site, although the latter is unlikely to happen.
The feature pit is the other side, mostly full of failed government IT projects. Too much, too soon, not enough thought or application of realism (but what do you expect they have only about four years to make themselves feel important?). The aim here is to work out what the customer really wants.
As long as you work on getting the core components correct, efficient and bug-free clients usually remain tolerant of missing features that arrive in later shipments, as long as they eventually arrive. This is where iterative development really helps.
Remember to separate the client's ideas of what the program will be like and what they want the program to achieve.
Some clients can create confusion by communicating their requirements in the form of application features which may be poorly thought out or made redundant by much simpler functionality then they think they require. While I'm not advocating calling the client an idiot or not listening to them I feel that it is worth forever asking why they want a particular feature to get to its underlying purpose.
Remember that in either scenario it is of imperative importantance to root out the quickest path to fulfilling the customers core need and put you in a scenario where you are both profiting from the relationship.
Wow, where to start?
First, there is a set of knowledge someone should have to do analysis on some projects, but it really depends on what you are building for who. In other words, it makes a big difference if you are modifying an enterprise application for a Fortune 100 corporation, building an iPhone app, or adding functionality to a personal webpage.
Second, there are different kinds of requirements.
Objectives: What does the user want to accomplish?
Functional: What does the user need to do in order to reach their objective? (think steps to reach the objective/s)
Non-functional: What are the constraints your program needs to perform within? (think 10 vs 10k simultaneous users, growth, back-up, etc.)
Business rules: What dynamic constraints do you have to meet? (think calculations, definitions, legal concerns, etc.)
Third, the way to gather requirements most effectively, and then get feedback on them (which you will do, right?) is to use models. User cases and user stories are a model of what the user needs to do. Process models are another version of what needs to happen. System diagrams are just another model of how different parts of the program(s) interact. Good data modeling will define business concepts and show you the inputs, outputs, and changes that happen within your program. Models (and there are more than I listed) are really the key to the concern you list. A few good models will capture the needs and from models you can determine your requirements.
Fourth, get feedback. I know I mentioned this already, but you will not get everything right the first time, so get responses to what your customer wants.
As much as I appreciate requirements, and the models that drive them, users typically do not understand the ramifications of of all their requests. Constant communication with chances for review and feedback will give users a better understanding of what you are delivering. Further, they will refine their understanding based on what they see. Unless you're working for the government, iterations and / or prototypes are helpful.
First of all gather the requirements before you start coding. You can begin the design while you are gathering them depending on your project life cicle but you shouldn't ever start coding without them.
Requirements are a set of well written documents that protect both the client and yourself. Never forget that. If no requirement is present then it was not paid for (and thus it requires a formal change request), if it's present then it must be implemented and must work correctly.
Requirements must be testable. If a requirement cannot be tested then it isn't a requirement. That means something like, "The system "
Requirements must be concrete. That means stating "The system user interface shall be easy to use" is not a correct requirment.
In order to actually "gather" the requirements you need to first make sure you understand the businness model. The client will tell you what they want with its own words, it is your job to understand it and interpret it in the right context.
Make meetings with the client while you're developing the requirements. Describe them to the client with your own words and make sure you and the client have the same concept in the requirements.
Requirements require concise, testable example, but keep track of every other thing that comes up in the meetings, diagrams, doubts and try to mantain a record of every meeting.
If you can use an incremental life cycle, that will give you the ability to improve some bad gathered requirements.
You can never ask too many or "stupid" questions. The more questions you ask, the more answers you receive.
According to Steve Yegge that's the wrong question to ask. If you're gathering requirement it's already too late, your project is doomed.
High-level discussions about purpose, scope, limitations of operating environment, size, etc
Audition a single paragraph description of the system, hammer it out
Mock up UI
Formalize known requirements
Now iterate between 3 and 4 with more and more functional prototypes and more specs with more details. Write tests as you go. Do this until you have functional software and a complete, objective, testable requirements spec.
That's the dream. The reality is usually after a couple iterations everybody goes head-down and codes until there's a month left to test.
Gathering Business Requirements Are Bullshit - Steve Yegge
read the agile manifesto - working software is the only measurement for the success of a software project
get familiar with agile software practices - study Scrum , lean programming , xp etc - this will save you tremendous amount of time not only for the requirements gathering but also for the entire software development lifecycle
keep regular discussions with Customers and especially the future users and key-users
make sure you talk to the Persons understanding the problem domain - e.g. specialists in the field
Take small notes during the talks
After each CONVERSATION write an official requirement list and present it for approving. Later on it would be difficult to argue against all agreed documentation
make sure your Customers know approximately what are the approximate expenses in time and money for implementing "nice to have" requirements
make sure you label the requirements as "must have" , "should have" and "nice to have" from the very beginning, ensure Customers understand the differences between those types also
integrate all documents into the latest and final requirements analysis (or the current one for the iteration or whatever agile programming cycle you are using ... )
remember that requirements do change over the software life cycle , so gathering is one thing but managing and implementing another
KISS - keep it as simple as possible
study also the environment where the future system will reside - there are more and more technological restraints from legacy or surrounding systems , since the companies do not prefer to throw to the garbage the money they have invested for decades even if in our modern minds 20 years old code is garbage ...
Like most stages of the software development process its iteration works best.
First find out who your users are -- the XYZ dept,
Then find out where they fit into the organisation -- part of Z division,
Then find out what they do in general terms -- manage cash
Then in specific terms -- collect cash from tills, and check for till fraud.
Then you can start talking to them.
Ask what problem they want you want to solve -- you will get an answer like write a bamboozling system using OCR with shark technoligies.
Ignore that answer and ask some more questions to find out what the real problem is -- they cant read the till slips to reconcile the cash.
Agree a real solution with the users -- get a better ink ribbon supplier - or connect the electronic tills to the network and upload the logs to a central server.
Then agree in detail how they will measure the success of the project.
Then and only then propose and agree a detailed set of requirements.
I would suggest you to read Roger-Pressman's Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach
Before you go talking to the stakeholders/users/anyone be sure you will be able to put down the gathered information in a usefull and days-lasting way.
Use a sound-recorder if it is OK with the other person and the information is bulky.
If you heard something important and you need some reasonable time to write it down, you have two choices: ask the other person to wait a second, or say goodbye to that precious information. You wont remember it right, ask any neuro-scientist.
If you detect that a point need deeper review or that you need some document you just heard of, make sure you make a commitment with the other person to send that document or schedule another meeting with a more specific purpose. Never say "I'll remember to ask for that xls file" because in most cases you wont.
Not to long after the meeting, summarize all your notes, recordings and fresh thoughts. Just summarize it rigth. Create effective reminders for the commitments.
Again, just after the meeting, is the perfect time to understand why the gathering you just did was not as right as you thought at the end of the meeting. That's when you will be able to put down a lot of meaningful questions for another meeting.
I know the question was in the perspective of the pre-meeting, but please be aware that you can work on this matters before the meeting and end up with a much usefull, complete and quality gathering.
I've been using mind mapping (like a work breakdown structure) to help gather requirements and define the unknowns (the #1 project killer). Start at a high level and work your way down. You need to work with the sponsors, users and development team to ensure you get all the angles and don't miss anything. You can't be expected to know the entire scope of what they want without their involvement...you - as a project manager/BA - need to get them involved (most important part of the job).
There are some great ideas here already. Here are some requirements gathering principles that I always like to keep in mind:
Know the difference between the user and the customer.
The business owners that approve the shiny project are usually the customers. However, a devastating mistake is the tendency to confuse them as the user. The customer is usually the person that recognizes the need for your product, but the user is the person that will actually be using the solution (and will most likely complain later about a requirement your product did not meet).
Go to more than one person
Because we’re all human, and we tend to not remember every excruciating detail. You increase your likelihood of finding missed requirements as you talk to more people and cross-check.
Avoid specials
When a user asks for something very specific, be wary. Always question the biases and see if this will really make your product better.
Prototype
Don’t wait till launch to show what you have to the user. Do frequent prototypes (you can even call them beta versions) and get constant feedback throughout the development process. You’ll probably find more requirements as you do this.
I recently started using the concepts, standards and templates defined by the International Institute of Business Analysts organization (IIBA).
They have a pretty good BOK (Book of Knowledge) that can be downloaded from their website. They do also have a certificate.
Requirements Engineering is a bit of an art, there are lots of different ways to go about it, you really have to tailor it to your project and the stakeholders involved. A good place to start is with Requirements Engineering by Karl Wiegers:
http://www.amazon.com/Software-Requirements-Second-Pro-Best-Practices/dp/0735618798/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234910330&sr=8-2
and a requirements engineering process which may consist of a number of steps e.g.:
Elicitation - for the basis for discussion with the business
Analysis and Description - a technical description for the purpose of the developers
Elaboration, Clarification, Verification and Negotiation - further refinement of the requirements
Also, there are a number of ways of documenting the requirements (Use Cases, Prototypes, Specifications, Modelling Languages). Each have their advantages and disadvantages. For example prototypes are very good for elicitation of ideas from the business and discussion of ideas.
I generally find that writing a set of use cases and including wireframe prototypes works well to identify an initial set of requirements. From that point it's a continual process of working with technical people and business people to further clarify and elaborate on the requirements. Keeping track of what was initially agreed and tracking additional requirements are essential to avoid scope creep. Negotiation plays a bit part here also between the various parties as per the Broken Iron Triangle (http://www.ambysoft.com/essays/brokenTriangle.html).
IMO the most important first step is to set up a dictornary of domain-specific words. When your client says "order", what does he mean? Something he receives from his customers or something he sends to his suppliers? Or maybe both?
Find the keywords in the stakeholders' business, and let them explain those words until you comprehend their meaning in the process. Without that, you will have a hard time trying to understand the requirements.
i wrote a blog article about the approach i use:
http://pm4web.blogspot.com/2008/10/needs-analysis-for-business-websites.html
basically: questions to ask your client before building their website.
i should add this questionnaire sheet is only geared towards basic website builds - like a business web presence. totally different story if you are talking about web-based software. although some of it is still relavant (e.g. questions relating to look and feel).
LM
I prefer to keep my requirements gathering process as simple, direct and thorough as possible. You can download a sample document that I use as a template for my projects at this blog posting: http://allthingscs.blogspot.com/2011/03/documenting-software-architectural.html