[Uml-devel] Wish for redesign

[Andrew Sutton]

On Thursday 24 October 2002 16:26, Sebastian Stein wrote:
> On every computer where I can test this I would have a full working Linux
> ;-) So not at work there is only MS everywhere :-(

there's actually an interesting point to be made in this argument somewhere - 
and its not a very positive argument :( keep in mind, i'm not saying that 
this is a bad idea... its just a point of view.

it seems to me that most of the people using uml (or even considering to use 
uml) are software engineers or architects or what have you, and most work of 
this variety (sorry to say) revolves around M$ world. given that most people 
doing serious design work are writing for windows, why build a product for it 
on linux?

then, if you think about the typical linux developer (kde, gnome, etc.), they 
don't really paint the greatest picture of "user-ship". alot of people 
working on this stuff focus on the little picture or have this hack first, 
redesign later. too many people working on open source take too much pride in 
the term "hacker". personally, i think its one of the more disappointing 
aspects (side effects?) of the open source movement. i mean really, how many 
linux projects have well documented designs - much less diagrams of those 
designs. i'm not knocking open source here (if you're wondering), and i'm not 
trying to play some elitist role - its just kind of disappointing to me.

given these arguments, we're trying to build a product for a group of people 
who - in many cases - abhor the idea of even slightly more rigorous process 
(since design is a phase of almost all development processes). actually, alot 
open source developers (hackers) people are really repulsed by the idea of 
writing down, god forbid, requirements, much less following that by a real 
design.

so we're building this software engineering tool (which is what UML modellers 
are - CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering) tools) for a platform that 
is being developed by people who, for the most part, seem to reject a greater 
part of the disciplines of software engineering - particularly those dealing 
with process. i don't blame them, it can be tedious.

to paint the picture darker, assuming we do attain even the smallest amount of 
usership from the open source development community, the learning curve for 
UML is kind of high. i'm seeing that in my advanced software engineering 
class. people who've never done it before are flailing, people who have stay 
afloat. that means, we'd be responsible for educating our users as well - 
assuming we know what we're doing (which, lets face, isn't always the case ;)

okay... thats alot, but i think its an important viewpoint and one that hasn't 
really been addressed too recently. AND, this really does have to do with a 
redesign because its going to help establish features that can address this 
problem. questions from this rather verbose email:

1. Who are our primary customers (target audience for this application)? If 
its the open source community, we need to realize here and now that they 
won't use it unless they a) see that it can be useful, b) understand how to 
use it and c) find the need to use it and d) find a way to use it such that 
it won't interfere with the typical processes of open source development.

2. What services can we build into the application to make it more available 
to open source developers (i.e. hackers)

3. How can we get open source developers to use it?

4. How can we reduce the learning curve of UML?

5. How can we reduce the "process association" affiliated with designing 
software as opposed to writing software. that is, can we fool hackers into 
adopting even the most trivial of processes for writing open source software?

6. How can we make the application more available (easier to use) for hackers? 
Would this affect its full range of capabilities for professional software 
engineers?

7. I can't think of any more and friends is on. mull it over.

andy