mirror of
https://github.com/amyjko/cooperative-software-development
synced 2024-12-25 21:58:15 +01:00
Change should to must; leave design-choices open
This commit is contained in:
parent
283ae80ba4
commit
c3c8359c8e
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
|
@ -16,11 +16,11 @@ There are some approaches to specifying requirements _formally_. These technique
|
|||
|
||||
Expressing requirements in natural language can mitigate these effects, at the expense of precision. They just have to be *complete*, *precise*, *non-conflicting*, and *verifiable*. For example, consider a design for a simple to do list application. It's requirements might be something like the following:
|
||||
|
||||
* Users should be able to add to-do list items with a single click.
|
||||
* Users must be able to add to-do list items with a single action.
|
||||
* To-do list items must contain text and a binary completed state.
|
||||
* Users should be able to edit the text of to-do list items.
|
||||
* Users should be able to toggle the completed state of to-do list items.
|
||||
* Users should be able to delete to-do list items.
|
||||
* Users must be able to edit the text of to-do list items.
|
||||
* Users must be able to toggle the completed state of to-do list items.
|
||||
* Users must be able to delete to-do list items.
|
||||
* All changes made to the state of to-do list items must be saved automatically without user intervention.
|
||||
|
||||
Let's review these requirements against the criteria for good requirements that I listed above:
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue