Version 1.0.0 usability feedback
Brought to you by:
gaspardis
Menu
▾
▴
Please, use this thread to communicate your opinion about the UCM 1.0.0 version.
Thanks.
Hello Gabriele,
just a few days ago I have downloaded UCM and I am very pleased by this piece of software. Especially the collection of requirements for packages is a very handy tool for me. But I discovered on my machine (WinXPSP2, .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0) that the requirements list is completely redrawn when inserting a new requirement in a view that is larger than the space of the window. Perhaps you could have a look at it because inserting gets slower and slower on larger lists.
A few more ideas that could fit for me:
1. Perhaps it is possible to have a checkmark next to a requirement to be used as a reminder that this requirement has already been reviewed/translated into use case/don't now what else...
2. Is it possible to set the background color for a requirement. E.g I could use red for very important, yellow for nice to have, green for already agreed, etc. A simple colorchooser dialog would do.
3. Another nice feature would be to define software versions, e.g. in a dialog box, which could be used to assign a requirement (e.g. via a combobox) to a specific software version. In addition to that a filtering of the view and the document exports by software version would be great. Of course this would also be handy for use cases...
Just my two cent... Hope it helps making UCM an even more productive tool.
Best regards
Stefan
Thanks a lot, Stefan.
I'll keep in mind your suggestions for the next releases.
Bye, Gabriele.
Some suggestions that pertain to exported files (PDF and RTF):
1. Optional title page, with user defined info, such as company name and logo, and other notes.
2. User defined page headers and footers.
3. User defined color of the (currently) blue header banners.
4. Optional version and date fields on the title page and headers/footers.
If user could set these on a perminant basis, ie, application setting v.s. project setting, the export process would dovetail into a larger documentation process more easily.
Overall, very good job, these are just some suggestions.
Thanks.
A very useful tool! Our team is using it currently, which leads me to my question. Is there any thoughts into making this a multi-user application? Or is there a workaround that we could use for 3 people editing the same .ucm file. We have tried SVN, but it has not worked very well for us at the moment.
Great job though, a great tool that helps in our productivity.
Not at the moment, but maybe in the future.
Thanks a lot, Gabriele.
I´m starting the evaluation of your software and it is exactly what we need here.
I pushed it form the CVS and found 2 little problems on the repository structure:
1) You sent the local configuration files to the repository (*.csproj.user). They are regenerated every time by the VS.
2) The way you structured the repository makes it impossibl eto checkou the solution using TortoiseCVS. You problably must create a root folder and put the project (including the solution inside it).
I am evaluating different types of use case software and find that the type I'm drawn to is the tree/form type interface that this software uses.
Excellent work.
The only thing I feel needs to be changed in the editing approach is to more requirements from properties of a project to being their own group like actors and use cases.
I think being able to have more than one use case open at a time to copy actors, use cases and requirements from one to another would be an excellent future enhancement.
Fred