Author Topic: Is there a list somewhere of unused/unusable features still in the product?  (Read 137 times)

timoc

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I came across "problem type" project settings dialog  while exploring EA14.1, while trying to figure out the what and how of maintenance and what is the difference/benefit of inside and outside requirements. I spent some time trying to use "problem type", and I was scratching my head trying to find where they are used.

Now i've come across this post from 2002 ["Re: Where is Problem Type used?"] explaining they are not used, and its better if you just ignore/disable it.

So if these types have not been used in 15 years, and they are still there in EA, i have to ask if there a list somewhere of unused/unusable/to avoid out features?


qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 10062
  • Karma: +200/-163
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Meanwhile it's probably easier to make a list of useful features instead :-/

q.

Geert Bellekens

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8934
  • Karma: +234/-26
  • Make EA work for YOU!
    • View Profile
    • Enterprise Architect Consultant and Value Added Reseller
I'm guessing most of the features, even the exotic ones like use case calculations or in-model instant messaging, are used by someone.
In some cases I'm pretty sure the only users are Sparx employees  ;D

We have a theory that Sparx employees are not allowed any other software than EA on their computers. Hence the need for mailing/instant messaging/project management/... features. :P

Geert

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 10062
  • Karma: +200/-163
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Now that you say it that all makes sense :o

q.

timoc

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I would honeslty love to be able to know how (and why?!) to use those obscure features, as long as they are supported. I am currently trying to figure out how to use the Calendar.

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 10062
  • Karma: +200/-163
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
If someone offers you a tool that can open a bottle, cook coffee and hammer a nail into the wall, would you also read the instructions of that?

q.

timoc

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
If i invested in the tool you describe, one that promised to help me optimize my drinking habits - that is from opening bottles in the evening though to needing coffee in the morning (the full drinking lifecycle  ;D ). Now if it had integrated hammering features, i would want to know how the designer thought it related to the optimal drinking life. I might also want to check to see if it can be used to break empty bottles...

Rather than extend the metaphor past breaking point, back to something related to this topic. I admit i am still reading the fine manual(s), looking for best practice, testing the workflows, and trying to choose well supported features. I'm not trying to overdo the manual reading, as the EA 14 Guidebooks alone weigh-in at about 600 PDF pages, with the whole documentation set coming in at about ~6300 PDF pages. Who has the time or inclination?

This is where it gets tricky, using ea in 'measure twice cut once' scenarios. Say i am defining my repository content meta-model, and I want to be able to plan and record project events in my architecture repository. I can do that in (at least) 3 different ways, all of which are similar but are supported by different diagrams, workflows and UI.

But question answered there is as yet no canonical list of legacy like features.


qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 10062
  • Karma: +200/-163
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
I always recommend to just ignore these as "sales features" and only use those that support UML modeling. There are tools that can handle project management, calendar and communication quite well, so I don't see why one should use the poor alternatives EA offers.

If there were a real need to read 6k pages of a manual to use a tool I'd just throw that tool away. Honestly I never really looked into one of those monster books they call documentation. Easy to say after using a tool for nearly 20 years.

q.