forked from rosasuominen/SE13
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
lab4
92 lines (77 loc) · 4.04 KB
/
lab4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
The document analyzed can be found from:
http://www.nihr.ac.uk/files/pdfs/NIHR4.2_Portal_URS002_v3.pdf
****************************************
Introduction
****************************************
-What is the project?
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) will implement a ‘portal’, as a
single point of contact through which everyone interested in Health Research will
access information about research and manage the life-cycles of research projects.
-Overall description of the product
The secure, internet web-based NIHR portal will provide a single gateway to
applications for the broad community of NIHR stakeholders; and to information and
knowledge bases designed around the needs of particular stakeholder communities
such as researchers, research networks, R&D managers, funders and sponsors,
including the Department of Health.
-Target audience?
The portal will provide a single gateway to applications, information and knowledge
bases for the broad community of NIHR stakeholders including researchers, R&D
managers, Department of Health managers and the research networks.
-The situation?
There is no such system in place at the moment.
-Motivation?
In January 2006, ‘Best Research for Best Health’ (BRfBH) was published, a strategy
that describes how the Government intends to make the UK the best place in the
world for health research, development and innovation.
-Structure
The structure is pretty much the same as in the Wikipedia example. It includes the introduction, overall description and requirements.
*********
Usecases
*********
Link to usecase diagram:
https://raw.github.com/rosasuominen/SE13/master/usecase.png
-What the system (will) do?
Store information, like medical conditions, projects, general policy
-How cases are described, how much details?
Use cases are various, and some user types might have many kind of projects and trials to take care of, so all of
them are not listed in the document, which is understandable. So everything is not fully detailed, but explanations
cover enough.
****************************************
General stucture of the system
****************************************
There is only one flow chart.
****************************************
Functional & non-functional requirements
****************************************
The phasing of requirements are listed in a table (p.18). These are all functional requirements.
Some non-functional requirements are given in the document such as performance requirements and compliance with
general and accessibility standards. Reliability, availability, maintainability and security are also considered as
non-functional requirements.
****************************************
How does (will) it look?
****************************************
-UI examples / views?
In the document the following is stated:
The portal and all its publicly accessible resources will be designed so that also disabled
can access it.
User profiles can be customised to meet the user's individual needs. The portal will provide
different layouts for each of the user types.
The whole portal and applications which are accessed
through the it have a consistent look and feel.
All resources will carry a clear copyright notice where the resources are not in the
public domain.
-Are the pictures mockups or screenshots from existing system?
There is a link to a guide for NHS identity which includes visual
examples, but the document itself doesn't
include mockups or screenshots.
-Transitions between views
The portal has a consistent look and feel.
****************************************
Your point of view
****************************************
-Is it a good/bad document? Why?
It is a good document. It follows the structure of a Software requirements specification and is clear.
-Consider also the quality of diagrams / illustrations
There weren’t too many diagrams or illustrations, only one. More diagrams would have made the document clearer.
-Do you think there would be enough information for you to build that system?
Yes.