Welcome to the Gallery – a place where you'll find hope and strength through the healing power of art and the universal reach of technology –
a place where you can
Connect, Create, and Thrive!
Interested in partnering with us?
Click here to find out how!
Displaying (1) Comments | Comment on this piece | Report objectionable art
I like Weinberg's definition of quilaty, but I'm not convinced that it is sufficient for a general definition of quilaty.Off the top of my head I can think of two concepts that I suspect are important to quilaty that it doesn't seem to address: perfection and fulfillment of purpose.By definition, perfection is ultimate quilaty. Therefore something that is perfect in same way must, in some way, possess/produce quilaty. Consider then a perfect sphere. Its perfection is in its sphericity, which is it's shape and shape is an attribute of the sphere. Does this not mean that quilaty can also be an attribute of something?Also is something's ability to fulfill its purpose sufficient for it to have quilaty even if doing so provides no value to anyone? For example, assume x & y are both sprockets and that x fulfills the purpose of sprockets, but y does not, because y has some defect that prevents it from doing so. Can we not reasonably state that x has quilaty and y does not (or at least that x is of higher quilaty than y), purely on their ability to fulfill the purpose of sprockets, irrespective of whether x or y specifically or sprockets generally provide anyone with value? I think people do this all the time. Perhaps quilaty, like most things, requires more than one definition.@Michael BoltonAssuming that quilaty is the relationship between the person and the thing . Can the thing be anything? I strongly suspect not.@Chris McMahonWhen you say a lot of context-driven software testing is forced only to consider any available value that people can be coaxed to realize from the software. I get the impression that by value you mean benefit. Is that correct? Surely if the costs outweight the benefits, you have grounds to declare the software bad (if you acknowledge that the costs & benefits are context dependent).
By: | Dec 16, 2012 | Report Comment
CoolCircles
UCPCFL
DK
There are 4 pieces of art in this thread