Use Cases

(Jan 2001). http://www.usecases.org (BrokenLink - try http://alistair.cockburn.us/usecases/usecases.html) is now in operation. Also, there is a wiki to discuss UseCases: go to http://www.usecases.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UseCasesRecentChanges

See also

CritiqueOfUseCases
UseCase
UserStoryAndUseCaseComparison
UseCaseRamblings
http://www.usecases.org (finally connected again! 8/30/2004)
http://alistair.cockburn.us/crystal/wiki/UseCases (AlistairCockburn's wiki for discussing use cases)
http://alistair.cockburn.us/index.php/Resources_for_writing_use_cases has list of online articles and presentations
http://www.pols.co.uk/use-case-zone/index.html
http://www.ferg.org/papers/ferg--whats_wrong_with_use_cases.html Stephen Ferg 2003 article. Any better critique?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workingwithusecases/
http://www.parlezuml.com/tutorials/usecase/intro.htm

...hmmm, seems like a long and interesting discussion about 2-bit use cases and user stories got lost? did they? Got written into UserStory.

Actually, the "long and interesting discussion" got moved into UserStoryAndUseCaseComparison. UserStory references that discussion.

Important industry tip: Many shops for hire out there say "We have a real process: We do use cases!". They then present long documents filled with action diagrams illustrating each feature requirement as a pretty picture.

These are actually UserStories in disguise. They don't bother to follow the various CS rules for pure UseCases; instead, they're designed for Customers to read. Don't tell anyone.

(Anyone else notice the non-sequiturs in those two paras? A)use cases aren't diagrams, B) user stories, not use cases, describe features, C) CS has no rules for use cases, D) user stories aren't diagrams either, E) use cases are designed for customers to read, F) ... (I'm sure there's an F somewhere waiting for those two paras).) What about: whether they are UseCases or UserStories has nothing to do at all with whether the shop has a "real process"?

CategoryProcess