|
Document Version 1.0 2/18/99
|
![]() "I pity the fool who can't schedule meetings!" |
Winter Quarter 1999
2/18/99 Document Author: Project Sponsors:
|
Project
Team:
Adam Lotz (Manager)
|
General information
Date of review: 2/16/99
Link to artifact under review: Design Document Version 0.9 (2/15/99)
Roles:
General issues raised
Specific issues raised
High Level Architecture
Results of review
Priority | Issue | assigned to: | expected finish date |
High | a couple of spelling problems | John | 2/19/99 |
High | a few grammar problems | John | 2/19/99 |
High | The following requirement was listed but not justified: The system will be able to maintain schedule information for multiple groups. It was determined that this requirement will be ignored. There was no justification for this in the design document though. It was decided to drop this requirement because it didn't fit the scope of the program. | John | 2/19/99 |
High | The programmer brought to the attention of the architect that using C instead of C++ would be easier for him. | John and Tony | 2/19/99 |
High | The architecture rational would be easier to read if it were divided between the functional and non-functional requirements. | John | 2/19/99 |
Med. | An issue was raised about the general architecture for entering times. The reviewer felt that it could be made easier to the user. | Tony | 2/24/99 |
Med. | One reviewer thought that the OOP section of the design specification needed more detail. | John | 2/24/99 |
Med. | It was brought up that in addition to links to snapshots of the user interface, that thumbnails of the screen shots would make the user interface section easier to read. | John | 2/24/99 |
Low | An issue was raised with the back end diagram. The reviewers thought that it contained too many lines to be easily readable and understandable. | John | 2/24/99 |
Low | The high-level architecture contained vague language. For example, "function which may be called". | Adam | 2/26/99 |
Low | An issue with the chosen architecture for one of the requirements was raised. The first requirement that says Users must have a way to add their schedules to the database. This will be accomplished by simply clicking on the schedule grid on the times when they will be unavailable. The architecture says this will be accomplished by check boxes. An issue was raised on whether it was possible to use something other then check boxes. For example, something you could click and drag, and would be easier for the user. | John, Tony, and Jason | 2/26/99 |
Revision History
1. Date: 2/19/99
Name(s): Jason
Riggs
Description of
revision: Initial document
Link
to WebSchedule Project Notebook
Last Modified 2/19/99 -- Jason
Riggs