XP Question: Stories and Index Cards
Ashima
wrong if I maintain stories, their brief comments, and track their
prograss with some software.
Just because kent beck says that he has not seen any attempts to
computerise stories succeed, it does not mean that any such attempt is
going to b unsuccessful.
When you try to computerise so much, why not computerise stories too?
Besides, I find thje notion of index cards a bit impractical sometimes.
What if some cards are accidentally damanged due to coffee spill, etc.
I mean, what is such a big deal about having index cards as against
computerising them?
...Ash
jason...@blueyonder.co.uk
computerise stories succeed, it does not mean that any such attempt is
going to b unsuccessful. "
Did Kent say that? I must have some more reading to do.
"When you try to computerise so much, why not computerise stories too?
Besides, I find thje notion of index cards a bit impractical sometimes.
What if some cards are accidentally damanged due to coffee spill, etc.
"
What if the file gets corrupted and you forgot to back it up? What if
the developers don't keep the records up to date? What if you spill
coffee down the back of the server? In my limited experience, I've
always found paper to be more durable than electronic data. Cards can
be laminated and there are inks available that won't smudge or run. My
PC is vulnerable in comparison.
We computerise when there is a benefit to doing so. If the team is
co-located I can't see any advantages to a paperless system that would
make the effort and expense worthwhile. If the team is dispersed,
that's a different matter. I'd love to see a planning tool that's as
simple, interactive and intuitive as card-based systems - but haven't
seen anything near that to date.
Jason Gorman
http://www.parlezuml.com
Tim Haughton
news:1123680557.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is it really necessary to use index cards for user stories? What is
> wrong if I maintain stories, their brief comments, and track their
> prograss with some software.
Nothing. If it works for you, go with it. I like them because they have that
hands-on touchy feely quality about them. It helps get my juices flowing, in
the most metaphorical of senses, of course. I think Phlip recently described
them as atomic and portable, which again is a good reason to use them. There
are pieces of 'XP' software out there, I have to confess I've never seen any
of them.
> Just because kent beck says that he has not seen any attempts to
> computerise stories succeed, it does not mean that any such attempt is
> going to b unsuccessful.
I'm usually quite pragmatic in choosing on what medium to store my user
stories. Although I'm sure I wouldn't dare use anything other than index
cards if Kent was watching.
> When you try to computerise so much, why not computerise stories too?
> Besides, I find thje notion of index cards a bit impractical sometimes.
> What if some cards are accidentally damanged due to coffee spill, etc.
You could scan them in, or store them on computer and print them out for the
planning game.
>
> I mean, what is such a big deal about having index cards as against
> computerising them?
I don't think it's that big a deal. If it doesn't cause you any problems, I
think Kent might well leave you alone.
--
Regards,
Tim Haughton
Agitek
http://agitek.co.uk
http://blogitek.com/timhaughton
Phlip
> Is it really necessary to use index cards for user stories? What is
> wrong if I maintain stories, their brief comments, and track their
> prograss with some software.
Using index cards forces your team to collocate, to move the cards around
according to their status, to pencil notes on the cards, and to sort them
during the planning game. If you do all that without cards, fine. Using
cards just makes the other techniques more obvious.
> Just because kent beck says that he has not seen any attempts to
> computerise stories succeed, it does not mean that any such attempt is
> going to b unsuccessful.
That's probably Ron Jeffries. He's kind of a zealot...
--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Ilja Preuß
> Is it really necessary to use index cards for user stories?
Not really necessary, but it simply might work better.
> What is
> wrong if I maintain stories, their brief comments, and track their
> prograss with some software.
Nothin *wrong* with it, but index cards might work better.
> Just because kent beck says that he has not seen any attempts to
> computerise stories succeed, it does not mean that any such attempt is
> going to b unsuccessful.
Where did he say that? How do you define "successful"?
> When you try to computerise so much, why not computerise stories too?
Does it make sense to computerize everything, just because it works well for
some things?
> Besides, I find thje notion of index cards a bit impractical
> sometimes. What if some cards are accidentally damanged due to coffee
> spill, etc.
You rewrite it. What else would you do?
> I mean, what is such a big deal about having index cards as against
> computerising them?
Ah, finally an interesting question! ;)
The team I am working on actually is using XPlanner for around two years
now. What we noticed is that in planning meetings, there tends to be a big
imbalance in contribution to the meeting between the person sitting on the
computer, and the others standing/sitting around him. The person on the
computer is the only one who can *do* something - the others can just ask
questions or suggest actions. This actually has led to some significant
stresses recently, so we decided to finally try index cards instead. It
worked *much* better, because everyone could contribute to equal amounts!
And as an aside, reorganizing cards on the table was much simpler than
reorganizing stories in XPlanner.
Here is a nice little experiment you could try to see wether it makes a
difference for you, too:
http://www.wikiservice.at/dse/wiki.cgi?KarteiKarten/Experiment
Does that help understand the reasoning?
Cheers, Ilja
paul campbell
> That's probably Ron Jeffries. He's kind of a zealot...
Erm, pot ?, kettle ?, :-).
Paul C.
paul campbell
I think the fluidity of physical cards is hard to beat in practice.
When you make a decision about what to do with a card to you dont have
to go and sit at a PC, log on to a system, navigate some menues and hope
that
the software support exactly what you had in mind.
Paul C.
Laurent Bossavit
> I think the fluidity of physical cards is hard to beat in practice.
I can think of a simple test... Poll everyone you know who uses a
computer on a daily basis, counting how many buy or use Post-It notes
(the paper kind, 3M originals or clones) vs. how many have purchased or
(legally) use a software equivalent.
Laurent
Ilja Preuß
>> I mean, what is such a big deal about having index cards as against
>> computerising them?
>
> I don't think it's that big a deal. If it doesn't cause you any
> problems, I think Kent might well leave you alone.
I don't think Kent would care at all.
But you should care. If a number of people have experienced that cards work
better than software, I'd pay attention. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Cheers, Ilja
Tim Haughton
news:42fc...@news.totallyobjects.com...
> Tim Haughton wrote:
> > I don't think it's that big a deal. If it doesn't cause you any
> > problems, I think Kent might well leave you alone.
>
> I don't think Kent would care at all.
Who said sarcasm doesn't work without emoticons?
>
> But you should care. If a number of people have experienced that cards
work
> better than software, I'd pay attention. Your mileage may vary, of course.
>
Index cards should always be the default setting, but there are reasons to
depart from using them. Paying attention and paying homage are different
things, if we don't experiment and tweak, we run the risk of stagnation.