<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Requirements Details &#8211; How Much is Enough?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/08/23/requirements-details/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/08/23/requirements-details/</link>
	<description>Software product success.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:39:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rolf</title>
		<link>http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/08/23/requirements-details/comment-page-1/#comment-143314</link>
		<dc:creator>Rolf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:20:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/08/23/requirements-details/#comment-143314</guid>
		<description>Excellent article, Scott!
I like the (not so new ;-) idea of using diagrams for higher level specifications AND providing detailed written requirements for the elements of the diagram. For me, this is a nice way of drilling down and rolling up. Two audiences served: low domain expertise and high domain expertise.
Most of the times I employ use case diagrams, then use caseish descriptions. One level deeper into detail there will be activity diagrams, supported by prose requirements, decision tables or whatever.
I found the specification as a whole pretty well suited for both beginners of the domain and experts. The downside: the specification covers both the low and high artifact detail range. The analyst has to be able to stand questions like &quot;what takes you so long?&quot;...
Most project lead I encountered seem to be more interested in a spec suitable for the project (quite naturally). Only few have in mind the poor guys who will have to enhance the product after the project is finished.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article, Scott!<br />
I like the (not so new ;-) idea of using diagrams for higher level specifications AND providing detailed written requirements for the elements of the diagram. For me, this is a nice way of drilling down and rolling up. Two audiences served: low domain expertise and high domain expertise.<br />
Most of the times I employ use case diagrams, then use caseish descriptions. One level deeper into detail there will be activity diagrams, supported by prose requirements, decision tables or whatever.<br />
I found the specification as a whole pretty well suited for both beginners of the domain and experts. The downside: the specification covers both the low and high artifact detail range. The analyst has to be able to stand questions like &#8220;what takes you so long?&#8221;&#8230;<br />
Most project lead I encountered seem to be more interested in a spec suitable for the project (quite naturally). Only few have in mind the poor guys who will have to enhance the product after the project is finished.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
