Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Is It possible to perform a system analysis and design for a Website ( particularly a social Network ) ?
What are the Expected contents will be , In the document ?
can u provide an example , please ?
{ I made a social network (www.sy-stu.com) as to be my graduation project and I want to add a full analysis study to the graduation document , I do have experience in UML and Usecases just the Idea of an analysis of a website is not clear and never perform one before }
thanx in advance
This sounds very ambitious, but I'm sure it's possible. Unfortunately, I've forgotten a bit of System Analysis, but do adhere to many of its guiding principles for my own projects. In fact, I would say that most data-driven Web sites are excellent candidates for Systems Analysis and should be used always during Web planning for any project you plan on putting into production.
Straight from the wiki:
The development of a feasibility
study, involving determining whether
a project is economically, socially,
technologically and organizationally
feasible.
Conducting fact-finding
measures, designed to ascertain the
requirements of the system's
end-users. These typically span
interviews, questionnaires, or
visual observations of work on the
existing system.
Gauging how the
end-users would operate the system
(in terms of general experience in
using computer hardware or
software), what the system would be
used for etc.
For the first point, I would analyze different technologies such as ASP.NET, Ruby on Rails and PHP. Each technology has its strengths and weaknesses. One key thing to keep in mind is if you plan on making your social network free, you may consider open source technologies over proprietary - as many servers and application frameworks for proprietary projects are costly. I would also consider Web startup and hosting fees. If you plan on getting a reseller account with Host Gator, then you would need to factor in monthly billing costs. If you plan to host your own servers, you may be amazed at the cost of doing so. For a truly stable system, you would need to put a lot of work and cash into managing your own Web servers.
For the second point, you could probably locate plenty of information on user requirements from similar sites - just check out forums for DIY social networks and see what people are having issues with in the Technical Support section. Obviously, looking into technology based articles and magazines would be a good place to search on end user expectations - or even just joining Facebook and Twitter - see what they are doing since people seem content.
For the third point, again you can consult your competition and see how the user interface works out. Is it easy to use? Is it difficult in some aspects? If you had to use their system for 8 hours a day at least 5 days a week, what would drive you mad and how would you do it better? And keep in mind logical work flow as well. Knowing your user base is important too. In some systems, you may be developing for other programmers. Using strong jargon may be fine, but for a social network you must remember that they aren't familiar with Web site data flow and terminology. So your controls should still make sense to a computer novice and still work securely (don't forget system security too!) and in an organized fashion.
Finally, remember that things happen. I recently created a back-end site for a client of mine. I though the system worked very well - and they were very pleased, but I just got an email today that they want the way order items are stored to work differently. This is why there's a maintenance aspect to the System Development Life Cycle - things change after you finish deploying. It could also be said that if I had communicated with my client's needs more closely, this could have been resolved. Fortunately, the change is relatively minor, and we do live in a real world where things don't always work as we expect. We just do our best :)
As I said earlier, Systems Analysis is a lot of work and should be. The point of it is to determine that what you are trying to accomplish is feasible and practical without committing to a long term project that could span years. And always remember that no plan is perfect. If there were perfect plans, we wouldn't need new systems :).
I am assessing some tools to manage software develpment projects. Dotproject seems a good one, but i would like to learn of other's experinces using it for software development.
Thanks.
I've been using Assembla for a small team and loving it. The web interface is very elegant, and it gives me power and simplicity at the same time.
My favorite feature is the strong ticketing system which allows me to create tickets on the web, assign them to developers, associate them with other tickets, estimate the time it takes to close the ticket, and aggregate those times graphically. It really shines, though, with its version control and ticket integration. Being able to specify that this commit is related to ticket #45, fixes bug #78, and closes ticket #32 is very nice.
They offer version control hosting for multiple version control systems - including SVN and GIT.
They offer free and paid packages.
For more information, check out their usage videos here.
Oh, and do let us know what you decide and why :)
An old post, I know...
I used to be a core member of the dotproject team and used it for years and set up many organizations on it... ranging from small non-profits and software shops to major government projects. It tended to work relatively well. Unfortunately, due to the crawl of development, half the dotproject team split to form web2project and we've been there almost two years.
At present, we (web2project) does a quarterly release and have done major work on the code. We've closed ~100+ bugs, added dozens of features like iCal feeds, and improved performance by 95% and cut about 1/3 of the code overall. And yes, we have an upgrade path from dotProject.
Not a programming question I'm afraid, so moderators do what you will, but it is a question specifically for self-employed programmers running their own ISV sites.
If you publish your own shareware or freeware, do you use any CMS or templating system to streamline maintaining the website? Would you recommend any?
Two most important features I'm looking for that I couldn't find in any popular CMS/blogging engine, from my favorite TextPattern to WordPress, Joomla and Drupal are:
a templating system to maintain structural consistency of xhtml page layout
a hash table of user-defined values that works with the templates to substitute these values for identifiers.
Explanation: If you publish more than one application, the site probably contains several classes of pages that are nearly identical for each product: "Features", "Screenshots", "What's new", "Download", etc. These pages have the same layout and differ mainly in product-specific data. I'd like to be able to define "CurrentVersion=2.2" for product A, and "CurrentVersion=3.3" for product B in a "dictionary", and have the system generate two "Download" pages from the same template, replacing the "CurrentVersion" identifier with each product's respective value.
Other than that, I am looking for good support for static pages (the example pages above do not yield themselves to blog-like timeline treatment) and for design templates (themes), since I can't do graphic design at all (no skills, no tools, no talent). A good search function, esp. for the FAQs, is important. Another nice-to-have is easy (preferably wiki-like) way of linking to pages within the site. Some CMS-es, such as Joomla, make this simple and common task surprisingly inconvenient.
LAMP, and preferably free, since mine is a freeware-only shop.
I need no collaboration features and no multi-user content editing at all. My ISP doesn't support Zope, so that excludes some candidates.
I'm asking this question having spent months trying to find a solution that would help me leave static html behind and reduce the maintenance chores, such as updating the current version number on several pages manually. So what do others use to publish their software?
(Please do not reply by just saying "Try X". At least please say what makes it suitable or how it is better than other possible solutions. I've already tried a number of CMS engines, and they all seem to require extensive modifications to suit this particular need. Since my programming experience is strictly desktop-side Windows, tweaking these products is well beyond my skills (and my skin crawls to think of potential security WTFs I could unwittingly commit). Time is also a factor, since between my day job and my late-night coding, there's little left for learning how to write my own CMS from scratch - just typing static html would be more efficient.)
Wordpress is quite nice. It has a big community behind it so you can leech some plugins, like for SEO optimization, PayPal integration, Google Analytics statistics tracking, etc. And you also have a full-featured administration backend to manage all your content.
I would recommend Joomla 3.2.x. I have the same sort of project based websites, and this provides the flexibility for all of the different requirements. While WordPress is great the simplicity of it gets the better of it, Joomla is far more flexible and has a huge support network and extensions library.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
What features should "Tomorrow's" wikis include? How might they incorporate Web 2.0 features like AJAX? What other features are they currently missing? What do you want to see from the next release of your favorite Wiki?
Edit: How might a Wiki be integrated into other products? What "neat uses" could wikis have?
Preview-as-you-type works very nicely indeed here on Stack Overflow. Many wikis don't do that.
Make it really easy to link between pages, eg. that, as you type, the wiki finds likely pages you may be referring to. That way you can make links without having to know the exact title of a target page, and bouncing on the shift key to WriteInCamelCase, or throwing in square brackets. Make it very easy to link to other websites outside the wiki, too (and by "easy" I do not mean like wikisisters, which, if I remember correctly, is like foowiki:ALinkLikeThis).
Similarly, if you can generate links within text automatically, you could, for example, have a mail system that wikifies your email. You create a wiki page, say, for Joel Spolsky, and references to Joel emails in your inbox become links to that page, which you can find by clicking "what links here". (This probably needs something along the lines of Bayesian filtering to prune the stray references to other Joels... your Bayesian Classifier learns that if the context is smart and getting things done, it's Spolsky. If it's flying Viking kittens, it's morely likely Joel Veich).
A variety of RSS feeds for tracking changes would nice, too. (Diffs, full text, changes on pages I've edited, ...)
Wikipedia has grown a fairly colossal categorisation system ("Fictional Cats", anyone?); laying a taxonomy over a wiki's flat namespace could provide another way for users to find their way around. Wikipedia's doing this a little, but in fairly limited ways so far: there are links to the relevant category lists, but you can't, for example, look for a composer called "Smith".
Similarly, wikis give you this big graph of interconnected nodes, of how closely your community sees the relevant concepts as being. Is that interesting? Is that useful? Does anyone who isn't google want to think about this stuff?
PS. If you believe Paul Graham's definition of Web 2.0 as "Democracy, Don't Maltreat Users, and Javascript works now", wikis are two thirds Web 2.0 already.
I am personally already tired of wikis. Wiki as a software is outdated, now it is about wiki as a feature (like my favorite new website, stack overflow).
The main advantage of community wiki — more editing — came into existence when we introduced "Suggested Edits".
With "Suggested Edits", anyone, even an anonymous user, can edit anything — so long as another experienced user reviews and approves their edit.
I'm in the process of choosing a wiki tool, and have looked at numerous packages over the past week. I'm sure there are dozens I haven't even heard of yet, probably good ones. But in general, here's my "beginner's mind" take on the problem.
Wiki markup should be abandoned. A wiki that is limited to wiki markup will only be useful to 'nix hacks and others who get excited about doing things the hard way and insisting that everybody else is stupid. I mean, Morse code is fine with me personally; I don't get what was wrong with a nice, clean dash-dot-dash. Or smoke signals, they were nice, except for the carbon footprint. But times change, and we have to change with them.
Real users (business users, customers, clients) want rich text editing. Period. And when a wiki tries to support both rich text and wiki markup, the results are not pretty. The model is confusing and (apparently) difficult to implement. The fckeditor extension at wikiwiki is a nightmare, for example. It's just not worth it.
Wikis need better access control. The idea that all content should be open to everyone is fine for an open, public, non-profit wiki like this one. But in the business world, that's not how it works. Restricting access is not evil, it's reality. Wiki tools need to do a much better job of providing access control: access to pages and groups of pages based on role or group membership, where groups can be formed by anyone on an ad hoc basis and users can belong to multiple groups and pages can be accessible to multiple groups, at the whim of the page's creator.
Those are the two things that I want, above all else, and I haven't found it in open source, at least not out of the box. Which, of course, is why open source is open source.
There's been some interesting work using wikis for testing and software development. EG, movement towards literate programming -- allowing pages to exist as both code and documentation that is compiled down into one or the other (or, I suppose, both simultaneously).
They have a regular session about this at the annual WikiSym conference.
I think one direction of Wikis is going from open ended collections of documents to an "everyone can edit but with more structure" applications like SO.
Another direction that I've seen is more direct integration with other project support tools, so project planning, issue management, and all that stuff.
Personally, I think the next big direction is going to be some sort of multimedia based Wiki, not just a Wiki where multimedia can be embedded in the text.
I really like MediaWiki. It's widely used and free/Free. The markup syntax is straightforward and allows you to do enough basic styling that you don't need to use custom HTML or to use a WYSIWYG. I assume by "sexy web 2.0" you mean Flash/AJAX, but I like MediaWiki because it works cleanly with basic HTML/Javascript (you don't have to wait for custom widgets to load, etc...).
What makes wikis reach their potential of usefulness is the community that develops around them more than the software itself. You need to find a niche where people are both passionate about (but not criminally insane about) the central topic and have enough technical prowess to log on to a website and edit some text.
"Wiki" is ultimately just a pattern:
Open editing by all/most visitors
Integrated revision tracking and rollback to reduce the cost of mistakes
Simple syntax for cross-linking between articles, and auto-creation of stub articles when referenced
That's not a perfect description, but it's a combination that isn't particularly magic. Successful wikis combine those things with a critical mass of people creating and maintaining content.
The next step, IMO, is less about web 2.0 shininess and more about the integration of better structural information. Adding any metadata beyond "this points to that" is an exercise in brute force hand-markup. Maybe microformats? Maybe the development of more structured knowledgebase software that uses wiki-ish editing UI but a smarter backend? I'm not sure, but I think better handling of the structured data is really the next wave.
Extensibility.
Check out DekiWiki, they are doing an excellent job with this.
DekiWiki extensions
The wiki-of-the-future will be completely editable online, concurrently by everyone. Check out EtherPad for a demo of the techonology.
For me, in terms of Enterprise style uses for a wiki, I have a couple of thoughts;
An effective way to keep and synchronise a central, web based wiki with multiple, offline, desktop style wiki's for people on the go
To move towards wiki as a function as opposed to wiki as a system, so we can integrate the wiki collaborative system into other things
Do you use a wiki in your company? Who uses it and what for. Do you share information between projects / teams / departments or not?
We use ours to store
Coding Style docs
Setup and Deployment procedures for web servers and sites
Network diagrams (what are all the servers in Dev, Staging, QA and Production called etc.)
Project docs (pdfs, visios, excel, docs, etc.) are stored in SVN. For the non-techies we have links to those docs in the wiki that point to an up-to-date share on my box. (tip: some wikis provide source control integration but ours doesn't)
Installation and Setup procedures for development tools
Howto's on things like using our bug tracking system, our unit testing philosophy
When doing research on a topic I often capture the important information in a wiki page for others to learn from
I've seen them used to keep seating charts in medium to large size organizations for the new people
At my previous company all of the emergency contacts and procedures for handling a critical outage where available on the front page of the wiki
The best part about a wiki is that it's searchable. Some wiki's support searching inside uploaded or linked docs as well.
If you setup a wiki and encourage or even require people to use it the amount of information that will accumulate can be amazing. It's definately worth the effort especially if you have someone in IT with some spare time on their hands to set it up.
Do you use a wiki in your company?
= We use it for the purpose of a Knowlede Based. Basically it is a wiki but many more functionalities intagrated.
Who uses it and what for
= Employees. Knowledge Sharing, Preparation of collaborative-documents, etc.
Do you share information between projects / teams / departments or not?
= Depends on the requirements. It is possible to set permissions between users.
We use a wiki, for documenting our systems. It's updated gradually as things update and evolve. It should go without saying that there's benefit in that, however whether you use a wiki or other methods is worth thinking about.
A wiki is great for collarborative editing. The information shouldn't go stale in theory, because as people use the systems they have the opportunity to keep it up to date.
However we have found in our organisation that people struggle a little with wiki markup. Especially tables. I think a solution that has wysiwyg editing would be better if you have non-highly-technical people editing it. Sharepoint springs to mind, but it's expensive.
I use a wiki as my virtual "story wall" for agile development. All of my stories are written and organized in the wiki. While my customers are reasonably local (we can have face-to-face meetings), they aren't co-located. To enable better customer interaction I've resorted to a wiki instead of a wall-based story tracking mechanism. It also works a little better for me due to the fact that I often have multiple, concurrent projects and limited wall space in my cube. In a larger team with more focused projects and more wall area, I'm not sure I'd make the same choice.
My company uses a wiki for project-planing but also for storing documentation and ideas.
I have found that a wiki is a great way to link the programmers in the company with the business-people.
When someone who are not on the programming-team comes up with an idea or finds a bug, it's a loot simpler to let that person document it in the wiki.
I think it's an important aspect for a small company like mine to easily synchronize the business-team with the development-team. A wiki helps with that, since it gives the feeling of being a part of the development process, instead of having to ask the programmer directly about every little detail.
we have MediaWiki to store technical information that is not ready to be published in other formats - specification drafts, diagrams (via GraphViz extension), results of short investigations, etc.
I also think this question is a wiki too :)