Today, in his blog, Sergey Nazaruk
published excerpts from the standard
, according to which the websites of state structures should be developed. An interesting document.
Immediately on Habré a wave of discussions
, where, among other things, statements about the revival of the scoop, “do not stop us from doing our work ... well, and other negative opinions. I also see the document very necessary and useful.
Why do we need standards? To think less when making some decisions. At the same time due to the accumulated and collected in the standard of knowledge to improve the quality of these solutions. I will give an example. In the 80s, the US military was puzzled by the procedure for selecting vendors for software development and delivery. How to choose contractors? It was necessary to introduce some indicators, the levels of companies, to separate those who work reliably from those who work haphazardly. In the idea, this indicator is only one number: 1,2,3,4,5 ... A company of level 5 is better than a company of level 3, therefore we are working with a company of level 5. This is how the CMMI
(Capability Maturity Model Integration) standard appeared. EPAM has the
4th level (out of 5), which means it looks more attractive on the market than those with 2nd or 3rd.
Somehow I had to deal with the development of Internet projects for government agencies. Occupation is not easy and is fraught with a lot of risks. The result often depended only on the quality of established relations with a particular official. But if it was changed - it was possible to throw the written product in the trash - his deputy again demanded the strange. The only way out is a clear fixation of the requirements and every movement in the project. Already then I wrote TZ according to the State Standards, which delighted the officials.
So why do we need such a standard?
Currently, the quality of many Internet projects of government agencies and agencies below the baseboard. It is no secret that these sites were designed as necessary, the procedures for updating them do not exist, there is no need to talk about information security. Sometimes the work falls on the poor system administrator.
The document appeals to W3C standards, which should greatly delight web standardists, as well as a number of usability standards provisions.
It is positive that a number of requirements have already been formed at the standard level. This directly means that when drafting the Technical Specification, it is possible to refer to the provisions of this standard. When I was engaged in analytics for Belarusian projects, I really lacked such a standard.
Acceptance of work
It is no secret that acceptance of work when working for government customers is always a problem. There are two reasons for this:
- Often there are not enough qualified specialists to carry out the acceptance of work. Proving that you are right is very difficult. As a result, it is necessary to prescribe very detailed quality requirements in the TOR.
- Sprawl requirements. Understanding that after acceptance the contract is closed the customer is trying to push through new and new requirements.
The fact is that if the non-functional requirements are not clearly stated in the TOR, the customer can appeal to industry standards. If we lived in the EU, then an appeal would be to ISO standards. And there would be little thought.
In general, if briefly, this standard removes a number of questions and sets the basis for decision-making by officials. And if the standard turns out to be of sufficient quality, then it makes sense to refer to it when developing commercial websites.
I find it funny that with the introduction of such a standard, web developers will have difficulty. :) Firstly, you can close the whole label, what we say we do according to the standard - let's go to us! Secondly, it is easier to rebuild a harmonious development process under this matter.
At the same time, I do not want to say that the document is excellent, excellent and should be taken intact. I did not read the entire document, only what Sergei posted. From what I read - a lot of things are very relevant. Has the right to life.What is wrong:
- The use of qualitative definitions. “The elements of the page should be easily identified” - it is not clear what it means easy? Similar language should be avoided in standards and requirements.
- Fuzzy structure. For example, about safety in the Design section. :)
If normal methodologists reach the document they will correct these nuances. In general, the direction is positive.