 |
privacy |
||
|
Hangout for experimental confirmation and demonstration of software, computing, and networking. The exercises don't always work out. The professor is a bumbler and the laboratory assistant is a skanky dufus.
Blog Feed Recent Items 
The nfoCentrale Blog Conclave nfoCentrale Associated Sites |
2005-06-11The Important Software Standards: Quality, Performance, and DiligenceACM News Service: Developers Should Carry the Banner of Software Standards. Peter Coffee in his 2005-06-06 eWeek column takes on a different notion of standards that are long overdue in software development. His lead is a bit threatening:
Still, I find it difficult to fault the sentiment behind this summary in the blurb:
An example of the kind of standard being discussed is designing for accessibility, as prescribed in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act enacted in the United States. The idea is that “customers can help foster the development of acceptable practices by understanding current standards and incorporating those into purchase orders.” These don’t seem to be about standards for interchange and other aspects of computer systems and software. What kind of standards are we talking about here? Coffee starts out with observation that “Software standards used to be developed by programmers, for programmers, as tools for ensuring interoperability and achieving greater leverage for developers' skills.” Ah, programming and coding standards. All right, where are we going from there? Here’s what seems to be the gist of it:
I can be with that. I also think that smart developers will take the initiative in providing the kind of transparency and demonstrated diligence at software engineering practice and honoring of other standards that impinge on software as a product and as a service. I can even see that my investigations in open-system trustworthiness might contribute something in this area. I’m not so sure about regulation though, and I’m not clear-headed enough to think about software liability today, a topic that has me break into a cold sweat every time Bruce Schneier mentions it. But standards and norms and forms of certification (preferably of the product, which is what people end up dealing with) make sense without much question, so long as they aren’t developed by legislators and regulators. If you wonder why I’m wary, consider how we’re doing with legislated “education standards” and the measurement of their satisfaction. Then there’s the legislation of educational content (e.g, around what is science and what are scientific subjects). No, I don’t trust legislation as a way to improve this situation, since it seems too-often to lead to a vested interest and sometimes simply poor governance. Coffee takes this in the direction of contracts and warranties. As much as it brings up the willies again, I think we need to take seriously the charge that
I think the article’s parting shot is also on the money:
The article’s on-line pages are followed by a short list of factors that make definition of software standards difficult. I’m not clear on some of these, and they weren’t addressed strongly in the article. Here are ones that I understand enough to award serious scrutiny:
Well, well, I'm all caught up on Technews. I think I can spend a few minutes on some different kinds of standards as I continue into my easy-going, recuperative day.
|
||
|
You are navigating Orcmid's Lair. |
template
created 2004-06-17-20:01 -0700 (pdt)
by orcmid |