Talk:List of system quality attributes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This article has been rated as Redirect-Class on the project's quality scale.

Why no "Ilities" category?[edit]

I think a new category is needed: Category:Ilities. This page should be in an Ilities category, along with all the *ility articles this page links to. (Note that many of those articles do not link back to this page.) The Ilities category page should contain {{catmore}} to link back to this page. Comments? — Teratornis 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not 'ilities'[edit]

It is 'abilities'!

The idea that an ability is 'non-functional' is most odd. They are the attributes that actually measure the effective functionality.

Craiguc 09:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Did you know that there is an ISO-standard - ISO9126 Software Quality Attributes - that defines that Functionality is one of the Quality Attributes. Why not comply with that standard? There is a wikipage for it as well, I'll add that link to the 'See Also', but we should consider redirecting to there —Arjan Kranenburg 26 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


I was going to be bold and simply rename the page to "List of Systems Engineering Quality Attributes", but I see that a number of pages link here. I've never heard of "ilities" (then again I'm not a professional systems engineer), although I recognized the purpose of the page immediately when I saw it. I somehow doubt that somebody searching for information about quality attributes is actually going to type "ilities" into the search bar.

Note that a page about non-functional requirements already exists. The two could be differentiated by making the non-functional requirements page a descriptive article and this page a list, and removing all but the most notable examples from the former's rather sizable list.

A Google search shows that many authors put "ilities" in quotation marks, which suggests that the word is not formal language (see here). I want to see proof soon that this word is not merely colloquial groupspeak; otherwise, I'm going to make some significant changes here. —Latiligence (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Intention to Rename[edit]

I will rename this page soon because the current title violates naming conventions. If this page is going to be called "List of Ilities", notability of this term will have to be established. —Latiligence (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


What value added does this article provide? It looks like just a mish mash of adjectives - a dumping ground, a sand pile, rather than providing any sort of value. I believe it needs to include discussion of how the different 'ilities' relate to one another - for example, nomadicity and mobility look to be synonyms. Adaptablity and usablity should be compared/contrasted here. The functional relationship between auditability and credibility should be mentioned. I guess what I'm saying is that a sand pile of adjectives doesn't give much. I could go grab a thesaurus and come up with the same in about as much time. What should the goal of this article be, to create as long of an alphabetized list as possible? Or to impart to the reader an understanding of the value of functional requirements as emergent properties of a complex system and how they create trade offs and, when taken together, describe the system mathematically? - (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge pages[edit]

I'd like to propose a merger of four pages. This one, plus the Non Functional Requirements page, the System Quality Attributes page, and the ISO 9126 page. All are dealing with system quality attributes. ISO 9126 is simply a standard set of system quality attributes. The term "non functional requirements" has been repeatedly criticized in systems development literature. The only real consensus in literature appears to be around the notion of "system quality attributes."

Redirects are useful tools for handling the fact that many pages link here. I'm not worried about the links. But I do agree with most of the criticisms on this page about the utility of this entire article as it currently stands. Nickmalik (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add the page on Software quality to the list of pages to merge. There are far too many attempts to describe the same thing! --Nickmalik (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do it. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)