Re: "Allow" vs. "Require"

Subject: Re: "Allow" vs. "Require"
From: Kathleen MacDowell <kathleen -dot- eamd -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Keith Hood <klhra -at- yahoo -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:18:50 -0500

Good points, I agree with Keith.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Keith Hood <klhra -at- yahoo -dot- com> wrote:
> These are requirements you're working with. A requirement is just that - something that is required. It's something that the software must do. So the requirement should be written as an imperative - the software will or the software must.
>
>
> For the purpose statement of the requirement, just put "The RCP will provide the user a mechanism for schlepping the pekele."
>
> That says what functionality has to be built in but allows a lot of slop in deciding exactly how to implement it, just the way programmers want it.
>
>
> When you write the specs for that requirement, there's where you can put in nitpicking about whether the pekele schlepping dialog box is modal, whether or not it has a cancel button, etc.
>
> What the frabjapping bleep is a pekele?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> ÂFrom: Dan Goldstein <DGoldstein -at- riveraintech -dot- com>
> To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 7:26 AM
> Subject: "Allow" vs. "Require"
>
> I'm working with Development on a very large set of design requirements.
> There are many requirements that describe the software ("RCP") either
> allowing or requiring an action by the user. There was some question as
> to whether "allow" would be understood as an optional action, as in:
> "The RCP shall allow the user to schlep the pekele," i.e., the user may
> choose to schlep the pekele but doesn't have to.
>
> One suggestion was: "The RCP shall optionally allow the user to schlep
> the pekele," or similarly, "The RCP shall allow the user to optionally
> schlep the pekele." But I don't like either of those very much.
>
> I'm looking for something just as concise but a little less awkward.
> "The RCP shall allow the user the option of schlepping the pekele"
> sounds a little better to me, but I hate to turn a robust infinitive
> into a namby-pamby gerund.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, copying, electronic storing or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the sender, and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you.
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
>
> Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
>
> http://bit.ly/doc-to-help
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as klhra -at- yahoo -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
>
> Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
>
> http://bit.ly/doc-to-help
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as kathleen -dot- eamd -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? ÂHead over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? ÂSearch our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives



--
Kathleen MacDowell
kathleen -dot- eamd -at- gmail -dot- com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.

Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.

http://bit.ly/doc-to-help

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
"Allow" vs. "Require": From: Dan Goldstein
Re: "Allow" vs. "Require": From: Keith Hood

Previous by Author: Re: "Allow" vs. "Require"
Next by Author: Re: one word, not "if", for "as long as"
Previous by Thread: Re: "Allow" vs. "Require"
Next by Thread: Re: "Allow" vs. "Require"


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads