Jump to content

Talk:Dynamic systems development method

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khargett dk (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 11 January 2009 (→Where has the content gone?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Image

The key image referred to in the text is missing 213.86.200.19 15:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC) James@doctor-it.co.uk[reply]

The image is now there, but completely illegible, whether viewed in a web browser or MS Photo Editor. Mattmm 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what?

What is "([The Deane], Wizdeane Corporation)" that I was finding in the article? RJFJR 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegible diagrams

The two diagrams in the article are both unreadable. Can someone upload clearer versions of these (assuming the copyright situation is ok, of course). Otherwise I think we should remove them from the article. Stumps 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the diagrams are VERY DIFFICULT to read and that the original poster should realize that this gives a substantial negative impression to casual users of the entire subject. In spite of their poor quality, they should not be removed until replacements arrive. Actually, the fact that it is even possible to create illegible diagrams may mean that they are too complicated to begin with. I doubt the DSDM elders are listening though... 169.229.200.176 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of MOSCOW

From experience I prefer the meaning "Won't have this time" (i.e. this Iteration) - it's more useful than 'Would' as it helps get agreement on what to leave out--81.146.43.237 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC) GBAC 10/1/06[reply]

I don't know if this is too much of a nit-pick or not. It seems to me that the phrase "MoSCoW approach," as it's first introduced in the "Phase 2: The Project life-cycle" section, is not actually an approach. It's a mnemonic for the categorization of requirements. And in general why relegate the definition of MoSCoW (as well as all the other "Core Techniques,") to a separate section? That's prime time stuff, part of what defines the actions in the various phases. I'd say include those techniques where they're first used, then link to the first use in the other places the technique is used. (As a side note, technique isn't the right description of MoSCoW either, I think.) As I stated below, I'm not qualified to make these edits, as someone learning about this topic from the article, but it seems like something that would improve the article. BenODen (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzword removal efforts

To cleanse this article of its buzzwords would sterilize beyond usability, so I would recommend removing only those which lay persons in a boardroom might understand. I move to supplant the word "baseline" as the first candidate, and relegate it to parenthesis. Any other candidates? N8mills (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just coming by as a reader trying to learn what DSDM is all about, I concur with the concern about buzzwords. One example in is in the topic summary in the Principles section:

There are 9 underlying principles consisting of four foundations and five starting-points.

It's not clear to me that Principles means the same thing that is usually does. Are they "Principles of Design" or "Principles of Development" or what? The word principles usually needs a category to be meaningful. In addition, the section on principles doesn't describe how foundations and starting points are different. I would argue against simply removing the buzzwords and argue that turning them into terminology by defining the buzzwords instead of just dropping them as words that "any dummy should know." An encyclopedia article should define any terms that are not general knowledge for the target audience, in this case, software developers. I have no expertise to do this, but some editor of the wikipedia does. BenODen (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I guess I neglected to say that my perspective on the buzzword complaint is that it's is really about undefined jargon rather than about buzzword use. BenODen (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall flow of Method under-described?

It seems like for all the details given, this article doesn't actually describe how a prototype in the development section becomes an actual product to be implemented in the Implementation phase. There are certainly some things beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, but simply implying that the prototype magically becomes part of the project without spending any time on it seems odd. A prototype is usually an incomplete implementation, a step above a proof of concept, so fleshing it out and integrating a prototype into the main product seems like a step that could take some time and should be at least mentioned in the method.

Is this vague transition from prototype to product just a weakness of this particular article on the subject or is it a general weakness of the Method? BenODen (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where has the content gone?

A user seems to have removed a HUGE amount of content, and replaced it with text which appears to be culled from the source of another site (the font tags are still present!). I suggest that this is not the proper way to edit an article, and that any changes should be worked into the existing article if at all possible, and that such large changes should not be made without discussion.

The current article is not at all encyclopedic (it reads more like marketing prose), is completely un-cited and has questionable origin - if the person who put it on Wikipedia did just take it from viewing the source on another site it may be a copyright violation displaying it here. It also suffers from a severe visual layout issue. For these reasons it must be changed.

I do not have a thorough understanding of the subject so am loathed to make such sweeping changes as to reinstate the older version of the article. Can someone who can speak authoritatively on the subject lend their expertise.

I am not the authority that this collaborator seeks, but I entirely agree with him/her. Please can someone competent revert the change which removed all the useful content! Thank-you. Katriona22 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone did undo the edits I was talking about a while back, but the content has since regressed to the version I was concerned about. As best I can tell there is only one user who is interested in keeping the article as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_Systems_Development_Method&oldid=262776239, and several other editors who disagree. Despite not being an expert it seems that there is wide agreement that the previous version of the article was accurate at some point, and I posit that out of date content is preferable to the current article. With this in mind I'm going to undo the current set of changes and I call on editors to discuss major changes to the structure and content of the article here before wholesale destruction of previous editorss work. 81.97.210.186 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have again reverted back to original content made from user contributions over the past 4 years. This is now the third time we have reverted back to the old content. This old content is much more comprehensive and contains a lot of very important content that is not available on www.dsdm.org, e.g. historical facts about the origin of DSDM, a right side window showing DSDM in releation to other wiki articles about the software development process, an index at the end of the article for reference to other software engineering articles, comparisons to other development methods, and "See also", "References", "Further reading" and "External links" sections. This is all in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. I do realize that the details about the DSDM method are not fully in line with the newest version of DSDM (Atern), but very much of the content is correct, even in relation to Atern. People who believe that the content is incorrect in relation to the latest version of the method should correct the content, not delete it. I am an expert in software development and started using the techniques descibed for DSDM over 9 years ago. I have actively referred to the wiki pages about DSDM for over 2 years when I introduce Agile development methods to new development teams or when people ask me about Agile development. I tell them DSDM is the mother of all Agile methods and I actively refer to the DSDM wiki pages as well as www.dsdm.org. The priciples and techniques defined by DSDM are fundamental to the understanding of all Agile development methods. The new version of DSDM has not changed this fact. Khargett_dk (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now split the desciption of DSDM into two sections: one for DSDM Atern with the content provided by the person who wanted a desciption of DSDM Atern, and one for DSDM Version 4.2 with the old description, which was based on version 4.2. The content of the article should now be correct. The only problem is that the desciption for DSDM Atern is not as comprehensive and complete as for version 4.2. [User:Khargett_dk|Khargett_dk]] (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dynamic_systems_development_method&oldid=263363491"