Dimensions of interactive software requirements: synergistic opportunity

Structured analysis and design (SAD), object-oriented analysis and design (OOAD), and interface design (ID) define formal methods for discovering requirements and designing interactive software systems. Structured and object-oriented methods, collectively known as software engineering (SE) methods, specify methodologies that employ a unique set of interrelated models. Interface design methods employ user-centered techniques to understand users, their work environment and goals. Each specialized approach relies on the knowledge worker as a source of requirements where success hinges on effective coordination of activities in heterogeneous software development environments (K. Holtzblatt, Interactions, pp. 17-20, 1994). The software creation process may employ each of these methods independent of the other, in conjunction with the other, or not at all. SAD, OOAD, and ID methods yield independent views of requirements yet many of their activities, or dimensions of requirements, overlap within the context of a software development project. This paper investigates dimensions of requirements common to those methods that suggest collaborative opportunity, reduced knowledge worker burden, and improved software quality are possible. A current state analysis of requirements methods defined in the literature, and identification of interrelated and overlapping characteristics are discussed.

[1]  Michael J. Muller.  Layered participatory analysis: new developments in the CARD technique , 2001, CHI.

[2]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[3]  T.C. Lethbridge,et al.  Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) and the Software Engineering Education Knowledge (SEEK) - a preliminary mapping , 2001, 10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice.

[4]  Mark van Harmelen,et al.  Object modeling and user interface design , 2000 .

[5]  Andrew Taylor,et al.  IT projects: sink or swim , 2000 .

[6]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Emotional design , 2004, UBIQ.

[7]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Personas: practice and theory , 2003, DUX '03.

[8]  Deborah Hix,et al.  Human-computer interface development: concepts and systems for its management , 1989, CSUR.

[9]  Paula Kotzé,et al.  An overview of systems design and development methodologies with regard to the involvement of users and other stakeholders , 2003 .

[10]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-oriented software engineering - a use case driven approach , 1993, TOOLS.

[11]  Daryl Kulak,et al.  Use cases: requirements in context , 2000, SOEN.

[12]  Timothy Wells.  Dynamic Software Development: Managing Projects in Flux , 2002 .

[13]  Edward Yourdon,et al.  Modern structured analysis , 1989 .

[14]  Tom Pender.  UML Bible , 2003 .

[15]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Making customer-centered design work for teams , 1993, CACM.

[16]  Marcus Ciolkowski,et al.  Conducting on-line surveys in software engineering , 2003, 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2003. ISESE 2003. Proceedings..

[17]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Scenarios, objects, and points of view in user interface design , 2001 .

[18]  Jonathan Kies,et al.  User and task analysis for interface design , 1998 .

[19]  Alain Abran,et al.  The Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge , 1999, IEEE Softw..

[20]  Kentaro Go,et al.  The blind men and the elephant: views of scenario-based system design , 2004, INTR.

[21]  Ahmed Seffah,et al.  The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering , 2004, CACM.

[22]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction , 2002 .

[23]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  ACRE: selecting methods for requirements acquisition , 1996, Softw. Eng. J..

[24]  Karen Holtzblatt.  If we're a team why don't we act like one? , 1994, INTR.

[25]  Karel Vredenburg.  Industry briefs: IBM , 2001, INTR.