2008/10/26 aslak hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Stephen Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> A more qualified person may want to answer your question, but my short > >> explanation of the change of the default narrative layout is to state > the > >> business value at the start instead of the end. However, you shouldn't > feel > >> constrained to use that layout all the time though. > > > > I prefer (and still use) the old way for grammatical reasons. Putting > > the dependent clause of a sentence ahead of the independent clause > > that it's dependent is awkward and distracts from the reading. > > > > If enough of this we do, talk like Yoda, we all will. Wish that, I do > not. >
This is an evolution of the Connextra story format (as a.. I want.. so that..) to put the emphasis on the value. Liz Keogh blogged about it<http://lizkeogh.com/2008/05/14/rip-as-a-i-want-so-that/>a while ago and it's starting to catch on with the teams I work with. It has a really nice secondary effect which is that often the active participant in a story isn't the person who benefits, and the Connextra format struggles with this. Liz's favourite example is the capcha. No-one *wants* to type in some wobbly letters! Using the value-first format, you get something like this: In order to minimise spam on the blog site The *site administrator* Wants *a commentator* to answer a capcha when they submit a comment So now we have identified two stakeholders - the one who benefits and the one who does the work. This can be useful in understanding someone's motivation in a scenario. Cheers, Dan > > > > > The role and a feature is secondary to the business value (and the > role using the feature is more important than the feature itself). > That's why we prefer promoting it to the beginning. Without a clear > vision of what the business value we might be developing crap. > > Think of the template as three elements in order: > > BUSINESS VALUE > ROLE > FEATURE > > The exact wording you use is not important. The order in which these > elements appear is. There is nothing about this order that suggests > that it can only be described with Yoda language. I agree. But Yoda language it is not. Oh crap. I do agree that the concrete template we're currently using is a > little awkward though. How can we improve it? > In order to [goal] [stakeholder] Wants [behaviour] (The Yoda variant would be [behaviour] wants :) Aslak Cheers, Dan
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
