The relativity of quality is in the story above, and the reason why I will fall into two difficulties, and can be explained by the relativity of quality. This story about MINICOZY clearly tells us that a user thinks a software product that is completely passing, and another user may think that the quality is not completely pass. It is found that relativity is all defined due to the quality of the software. As long as you examine these definitions, you will find the relativity mentioned above. However, only careful investigation can find it because this relative is usually hidden; even in the best case, it is very unambiguous. For example, let's take a look at the definition given by Crosby:
The so-called quality is "conforming to demand." 2
This reflects some software developers 'thoughts. They think that users' needs are directly fell directly from the sky without reason, but the actual situation is not. Therefore, the definition below will be more accurate:
The so-called quality is "in line with a certain user".
As can be seen from my foreign women's text processing software, for different individuals, the same software products often reflect different "quality". For Terra, she cares about its readers; but for the project supervisor of MiniCozy, he is concerned with the mainstream of its users. Once this is recognized, I solved my self-contradiction between Minicozy. Who is the Masked person? In short, we cannot discuss quality from the specific people.
Every statement on quality is about a statement of a person (certain).
This sentence is both clear and vague. In most, "some (some) people" not clear, and this kind of quality definition, it sounds like Moses brought down from Mount Sinai {here authors It is a ten ring (Ten Commandments or Decalog). According to the "The Old Testament" on the Mount Sinai, God used his fingers to write ten commandments on two slate, gave to Moses. - The translator's note} is the same. This is why there is so much about the high quality of the software quality, but it is in vain - your worship may be a golden cattle like {Golden Calf, a sacrificial odd image, is an idol of Israeli worship. - Translator Note}, and I worship may be a slate. If we can take into account the quality of the relativity, then we can use this tool to implement these discussion as a real result. Whenever someone puts a definition of software quality, we only need to ask:
Behind the quality discussed here, what is the person concerned?
With regard to the components of software quality, there are many kinds of laws that have been well known, but they are often contradictory. Now, let us re-examine these proposals through the above heuristic methods. High quality is no leakage a. This is true for some users - these defects will make the work of these users. It is true for some supervisors - they will be accused of the existence of these defects. High quality is to provide numerous functions a. This is true for some users - they will benefit from these features in their work (of course, if they do understand these features) b. This is true for marketing staff - These people firmly believe that the more functions, the more sales high quality is simple and elegant encoded a. This is true for developers - they value the evaluation of peers. B. Indecent for professors in computer science So - they are intoxicated in a concise and elegant and high quality. This is true for some users - their work makes their computer overwhelmed B. This is true for sales personnel - the software they sell must High quality through standard testing is low development cost a. This is true for some users - they want to buy thousands of software B. This is true for some project supervisors - they are developing and developing Shy high quality is high development speed a. This is true for some users - their work is waiting for the software to get down B. This is true for some market operators - they try to kill in competitors Before I entered, the high quality of the dominant market is the high user friendship. It is true for some users - eight hours a day, they all need to focus on the screen using the software B. For other users, it is also So - when using this software every time, they can't remember the two difficulties of the interface when using it.
Recognizing the relative quality of quality, usually can already let us get rid of two difficulties in semantics. As a book discussed, you can solve this problem at this, it is really difficult. However, this is still not enough to eliminate two difficulties of politics:
A higher quality for a person, maybe for another person means lower quality.
For example, if our goal is to improve the "overall quality", then we have to make a weighted user. In this way, in order to achieve the overall quality, we first need to determine all related users, and fully understand their respective needs 3. Therefore, in each design, for any software engineering method, we will have to measure the quality of each user. Then additionally, the results of these measurements are added, and the overall quality of the different methods can be obtained. Of course, any software development project will not strictly carry out this complicated work in practical applications. Instead, it is first to exclude most people, and it is said that first, it is clear:
Who should I take into account when making decisions?
For example, MINICOZY's project supervisor is not only ignorant of Terra's opinions, but also when he conducts software engineering decisions, Terra's opinions are negligible. From this matter we can see that software engineering is not a democratic process. More unfortunately, it is not a rational process, because when it is determined to consider who is going to consider, it is often judged according to the individual's supervisor.
