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.

Recent Items
 
Virtual Classrooms Model Social/Collaborative Software Direction
 
Microsoft Cracks Open the Word, Excel, and PowerPoint Formats in XML
 
A Litany of Lists: Creatiing Secure Applications
 
As Complex as Necessary and no More.
 
The Same Old Mistakes, Over and Over Again
 
Sorting the Mail: Agile Databases, Vulnerable Applications, and Optimized Code
 
SSH and Known_Hosts Vulnerabilities Threaten Grid
 
Service Research: Focusing on Requirements for Technology, not the Technology
 
TiddlyWiki: Ohmygosh, I'm in Love.
 
3I: Individualized Interactive Instruction

Archives
2004-06-13
2004-06-20
2004-06-27
2004-08-29
2004-09-05
2004-09-12
2004-09-19
2004-10-10
2004-10-24
2004-11-07
2004-11-28
2004-12-05
2004-12-12
2004-12-26
2005-01-30
2005-02-06
2005-03-06
2005-03-13
2005-03-20
2005-04-03
2005-04-10
2005-04-17
2005-04-24
2005-05-01
2005-05-08
2005-05-15
2005-05-29
2005-06-05

The Important Software Standards: Quality, Performance, and Diligence

ACM 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:

“As practices and standards change, software must be regulated like other industries for consumers' benefit.”

Still, I find it difficult to fault the sentiment behind this summary in the blurb:

“commercial software developers should assume responsibility for their products in the same way electricians are held responsible for using certain grades of wire or consumer electronics makers guarantee devices are safe for use at a particular voltage. Such standards are taken for granted in industry and commerce, and ensure efficient exchange of complex products and services without requiring customers to certify and inspect every aspect of their purchase.”

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:

“Included by reference in contracts, enforced in many situations with the power of criminal law and taken for granted by customers in any reputable place of business, it's these detailed public definitions of acceptable practice that make it possible to exchange complex products and services—without making every customer individually responsible for expensive and redundant inspections and certifications.”

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

“Long overdue are specific statements as to the functions that a piece of software is intended to perform, the requirements that a customer must meet to keep that warranty in effect and the recourse that a customer will have in the event that this commitment is not met.”

I think the article’s parting shot is also on the money:

“The major IT task of the 2000s, likely to continue into the next 10 to 15 years, is to bring to software development and deployment the kind of reliability, consistency and enforceable level of quality that's needed in such a fundamental component of life and work.”

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:

• “A lack of reproducible tests and limited success of legal analogies challenge developers and buyers.
• “Sweeping disclaimers of implied warranty mean little.
• “Buyers should include task descriptions and define acceptance tests in purchase documents [speaking of IT acquisitions, not so much consumer purchases, I suppose]
• “Developers should disclose product limitations clearly [and quickly]”

---

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.

posted by orcmid at 6/11/2005 03:29:14 PM, rating data by NewsGator Online