-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reword use cases page #614
Comments
We had a good discussion with a user researcher a few weeks ago, whose basic take was: the terminology is used very differently by different communities of practice - so the important thing is finding your terminology and being consistent about it. I don't think we want to go down the line of the very atomistic use case language from software and systems engineering. The essence of what we're trying to do with that page is to highlight user-centricity of approach. I think there is a risk that switching to language of 'goals' removes the agent from the story, so going with a language of 'High level use cases' for our four categories, or just 'High level user needs' might work better? |
A challenge is that we are moving towards describing more granular use cases (not as atomistic as software though), e.g. "As a researcher at a corruption monitoring organization (NGO), I use contracting data to find single-bidder or low-bidder processes as an indicator of corruption risk." (I think we can settle on an approach that just looks at the meaning of the words we use; in this example, there is a literal instance of usage, or 'use case'.) The example use case would fall within the category of "public integrity". However, the user need that it establishes (e.g. We could call them "high level use cases", in so far as they do serve to organize use cases, but I think the words 'goal' or 'outcome' serve to remind the reader of the orientation we want them to take, and help distinguish between: the specific instances of usage, the requirements to perform such instances, and the goals being pursued through those instances. There's still ample opportunity to have lots of agency in the documentation. Also, 'goal' is a word that implies an agent. You can't have goals if you lack agency. |
In #1302, the page is renamed to "user needs". |
The 'use cases' on this page are more like 'goals'. http://standard.open-contracting.org/latest/en/getting_started/use_cases/ My understanding of nomenclature is:
See internal comment about this page: https://crm.open-contracting.org/issues/2217#note-21
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: