News and Reviews > Mini-Reviews by Members
Comparative Review of Writers' Tools (INITIAL DRAFT)
rgdot:
True, it is an aspiration and I believe a cut down version is ok, syncing events for example with note taking. For example Resources personally I wouldn't even want an online/sync/cloud anything for it. It is arguable that Messages and Vault can be handled better with a standalone for a smartphone.
IainB:
@Dormouse: Where you write:
...For maximum use a review also needs to address the needs of all types of writers ...
-Dormouse (May 14, 2018, 10:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
I couldn't agree more. :Thmbsup:
As a longtime and keen writing tools user and PIM user, I have had my eye on this discussion thread since it started, and whilst I thought the list of the supposed candidate types of users was worth developing, I couldn't find where a URA (User Requirements Analysis) had been tentatively drawn up for that hypothetical population of users - though I suppose I could have simply missed it, of course.
A URA would usually be the project artefact where the explicit needs and priorities of that hypothesised population of potential user candidates was catalogued/defined in a pukka User Requirements document.
Essentially, a review of applications software for Writers Tools (or PIMs) would need to identify the criteria used to establish which specific user requirements were able to be met, and to what extent, by which applications software in the scope of the review. It would not be correct to call this the same thing as a comparison of features.
Experience indicates that failure to do this effectively will likely result in a now all-too-typical nebulous review of the sort that gets discussed at great length on sites such as OutLinerSoftware.com, for example (and DCF), ultimately apparently leading nowhere in particular.
Unless you are happy to tread down the same old path (which I wouldn't recommend), I would suggest some work be put in now to a collaborative effort (you mentioned collaboration earlier) to draft up a URA. There's an existing and relevant template here (overlapping CHS and PIM user requirements) that could be used, with some of the blanks already filled in, so please feel free to copy it and its method and invite us (i.e., any interested DCF denizens who may feel so inclined) to address specific parts in a collaborative manner.
Hope this helps or is of use.
Dormouse:
True, it is an aspiration and I believe a cut down version is ok, syncing events for example with note taking. For example Resources personally I wouldn't even want an online/sync/cloud anything for it. It is arguable that Messages and Vault can be handled better with a standalone for a smartphone.-rgdot (December 15, 2018, 03:14 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'd agree, but the developer has a lot of options about which way he'd want to take an Android version, so it's hard to know what it might do.
Dormouse:
I thought the list of the supposed candidate types of users was worth developing, I couldn't find where a URA (User Requirements Analysis) had been tentatively drawn up for that hypothetical population of users - though I suppose I could have simply missed it, of course.-IainB (December 16, 2018, 07:36 AM)
--- End quote ---
I've not even considered it before. And, tbh, they're all pretty heterogenous groups.
Experience indicates that failure to do this effectively will likely result in a now all-too-typical nebulous review of the sort that gets discussed at great length on sites such as OutLinerSoftware.com, for example (and DCF), ultimately apparently leading nowhere in particular.-IainB (December 16, 2018, 07:36 AM)
--- End quote ---
I hope it doesn't encourage 'angels on a pinhead' discussions of that type. I think my approach has been far too wide (many very different programs; many very different usages) and broadbrush for that to be likely.
I would suggest some work be put in now to a collaborative effort (you mentioned collaboration earlier) to draft up a URA.
-IainB (December 16, 2018, 07:36 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'd be very happy for someone to do that.
Personally, I suspect that there are far too many variables for it to be practical and too many differences in personal preferences and workflows to achieve precision.
My own interest is far more in ecosystems and workflows, rather than the programs themselves.
Across a wide range of typical usages (those I have chosen being where I have some personal experience; there are other usages that I don't have experience of). This was triggered because of irritation that most reviews I have seen fail to consider this angle or use only one perspective - usually academic or fiction writing.
Workflows are usually not considered at all.
You'll have noticed that my interim personal selections cover one small slice of a total workflow and that I've not yet commented on which usages I think they would suit. And that programs like NoteZilla and WriteMonkey would have very few ticks on a requirements matrix. I anticipate filling in a complete personal Stage/Usage matrix over a lot of time (what looks good to start with often doesn't feel like that with substantial longer term use). I'd like to do it faster but I'm waiting on using the programs for real world tasks.
IainB:
@Dormouse:
Ahahaha, sorry to have wasted your time then. I shall go back to sleep now.
I guess what people might actually need to do and what sort of data types they would need to capture etc., aren't necessarily a concern from your perspective as they would be from mine. It's just the way I have been trained.
I am accustomed to "doing it by the numbers" and looking at a client organisation's fundamental business and user requirements and defining them before going into an RFT (Request for Tender) process to identify what vendors out there might have software that can meet those requirements.
Actually, I don't think I've ever done an "angels on a pin" count before, though, from experience, that could be a good analogy for the Information Engineering approach! :D
I suppose I might have to do it if I did a project for a religious organisation (excepting the Scientologists, who I gather count "Thetans", or something).
No, the only things that count in my dull universe are (off of the top of me 'ead):
* Business requirements (Business Case).
* Budget.
* Collect/define User Requirements.
* Tender process:
* Issue RFT.
* Receive Tenders.
* Study each tender to establish degree of fit between requirements and provider functionality that meets those requirements.
* Assess the likely effect of using the software in the key workflow processes (including any necessary re-engineering) and on resource requirements and process timings, throughputs and efficiency.
* Assess the extent to which quoted initial and operational costs of the new system are within budget allocation.
I never 'ad to bother me 'ead about such as them things wen I were a programmer an' the only things as I ad' ter count then were register values in binary an' octal ... no, life were a lot simpler then... ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version