What do you value most in software quality?

[Firestrider]

I want to see where people want to see improvement in future software. What do you value most out of these (give your top 3):

Integration = how well the application works with other applications on the system without conflicts or extra configuration.
Simplicity = how well the user interface lays out the functions of the application without clutter.
Seamlessness = how well the user interface keeps the same design elements / methodology as other applications on the system.
Intuitiveness = how fast the user can determine the function of a user interface element.
Features = how many functions the application can perform.
Modularity = how far can you decompartmentalise or strip down a system of its packages/plugins/extensions etc.
Performance = speed and responsiveness of the user interface and background compute-intesive workloads.
Efficiency = how fast a user can perform a task with an application (less steps, less time)
Security = how well the system is protected against security vulnerabilities, malware, etc.
Stability = how susceptible the system is to crashes, hangs, or general errors.
Reliability = long term stability, no loss of data, memory leaks, performance regressions; steady state computing.
Interoperability = how well the application complies with to open standards and protocols.
Scalability = how well the application scales; allocation of memory and cpu depending on hardware specs for optimal performance.
Customization = how much the user can change the look and feel of the application/system.
Ubiquity = the ability to use the application on any platform/architecture, any time, and any where.

If you value something more than what's on this list please say what and what it means.

My list is:
1.) Performance
2.) Seamlessness
3.) Ubiquity

 

[whs]

Quick question: What are you going to do with our input?

 

[not so gray matter]

At this point "Sevenability" Whether or not the program is fubared by or fubars Win7.

 

[Firestrider]

Quick question: What are you going to do with our input?

I thought someone would ask this. It's just out of my genuine curiosity. I'm not using this as a survey or in a project or anything.

 

[wakeboardr116]

I'd say seamlessness, performance, and efficiency. In no particular order.

 

[WindowsStar]

Conformation = How well does the application conform to standards (i.e. Microsoft Windows {install in \program files\ or \program files (x86)\, set the proper permissions for standard users}, Work Correctly in Microsoft Domains, Work Correctly with Microsoft Security, etc.)

1) Conformation
2) Conformation
3) Intregration

We have had Microsoft Domains for 12 years now, why can't programmers get it through their head to stop programming everything like everyone is using Windows 95 and start programming for Windows XP and understand the differences between a standard user and administrator. They need to understand that NOT everyone is using an administrator account and their software needs to work correctly in a standard user account and on a Microsoft domain where the user most likely will be even more restricted.

 

[CommonTater]

I want to see where people want to see improvement in future software. What do you value most out of these (give your top 3):

From your list... stability.

But the best features are:

Specificity ... do one job and do it well. There's nothing I hate more than software that tries to everything and gets none of it right. I don't want my music player to burn DVDs and I don't want my DVD burner to make toast in the morning.

Simplicity ... make it very easy to get the job done. Take one task, reduce it to the most basic elements and wherever possible give the user one or two buttons that get the job done. The perfect UI would have 3 buttons: Help, Do It, Exit.

Layout ... Nothing bugs me more than software that looks like it's UI was designed by a 12 year old. Work progress should naturally flow from top left to bottom right of the window, controls and UI elements should be laid out to intuitively lead the user through the necessary sequences...

Here's an example now NOT to do it...

 

[zzz2496]

If you know Apache HTTP server, that's my ideal software...

1. Very efficient
2. Very safe
3. Very standard compliant
4. Very scalable
5. Very expandable
6. Very stable
7. Cross Platform/Ubiquity
8. It doesn't have UI
9. It doesn't need GUI
10. Uses .conf files (how in the world Windows programmers NOT use .conf files).
11. OPEN SOURCE and TRULY FREE !!!!

zzz2496

 

[si8mon]

Performance: Any software that I use has good speed and response time. If it doesn't i uninstall it.
Reliability: Software that freezes or crashes is crap software.
Simplicity: If I don't know how to navigate around the software then it has a terrible layout or i'm a complete idiot and don't know how to use it.

 

[bobtran]

For me it would be:

1) Stability
2) Reliability
3) Security

All else rates behind these basic requirements. Comes from my DBA background.

 

[WindowsStar]

If you know Apache HTTP server, that's my ideal software...

1. Very efficient
2. Very safe
3. Very standard compliant
4. Very scalable
5. Very expandable
6. Very stable
7. Cross Platform/Ubiquity
8. It doesn't have UI
9. It doesn't need GUI
10. Uses .conf files (how in the world Windows programmers NOT use .conf files).
11. OPEN SOURCE and TRULY FREE !!!!

zzz2496

I have the answer for #10. That is because Microsoft made a decision long ago to go with the Registry for software settings so that you could control the settings. Was that the best way to go, maybe not, but they wanted to get away from .INI files so you could have more security. Mind you this is before NTFS existed. Now with NTFS you can control access to files and achieve the same thing as the registry. So it is not as big deal. A programmer can use an .INI or .CFG or .CONF file is does not matter. You can then place the correct security on the file and achieve the same security as the Registry. However since this is not MS standard or practice you will be outside the norm.

 

[zzz2496]

I didn't brought up "Uses .conf files" as security - I brought it up because I feel it's MUCH EASIER to work with than any MS's current product offering...
See, I can change some configuration of Apache by editing it's .conf file, save the file - send message to the whole network that the web server is going down in a minute, and will be up in no time, everything done through console, over SSH, encrypted, very secure, and bandwidth efficient. MS's IIS, I'd need to remote desktop to it, requiring me at least have a GUI based client, and have a RPD compatible client, connect to the server, waste all that bandwidth for all those not so shiny GUI, open MMC snap-in for IIS, change some config, save, sending messages to everyone that the web server is going down in a minute and will be up in no time. I don't know if RDP can be encrypted to the level of SSH, I don't really care - I live in a country where broadband internet access costs an arm and a leg (and probably some of your babies too). So bandwidth efficiency is by far Apache's advantage, just by enabling ".conf" file...

zzz2496

 

[WindowsStar]

I didn't brought up "Uses .conf files" as security - I brought it up because I feel it's MUCH EASIER to work with than any MS's current product offering...
See, I can change some configuration of Apache by editing it's .conf file, save the file - send message to the whole network that the web server is going down in a minute, and will be up in no time, everything done through console, over SSH, encrypted, very secure, and bandwidth efficient. MS's IIS, I'd need to remote desktop to it, requiring me at least have a GUI based client, and have a RPD compatible client, connect to the server, waste all that bandwidth for all those not so shiny GUI, open MMC snap-in for IIS, change some config, save, sending messages to everyone that the web server is going down in a minute and will be up in no time. I don't know if RDP can be encrypted to the level of SSH, I don't really care - I live in a country where broadband internet access costs an arm and a leg (and probably some of your babies too). So bandwidth efficiency is by far Apache's advantage, just by enabling ".conf" file...

zzz2496

Sounds like you come from an *IX environment which is fine, however if you are really working with IIS you can do the same, you can remote to the machine via, Telnet, SSH, a Command Prompt, network share etc. etc. and do the same thing. As well if Apache is running on a Windows Box.

I think the OP was talking about software in general; I was just covering why MS uses the registry instead of configuration files. Either way you can edit remotely as needed without the GUI if you wish.

 

[zzz2496]

I didn't brought up "Uses .conf files" as security - I brought it up because I feel it's MUCH EASIER to work with than any MS's current product offering...
See, I can change some configuration of Apache by editing it's .conf file, save the file - send message to the whole network that the web server is going down in a minute, and will be up in no time, everything done through console, over SSH, encrypted, very secure, and bandwidth efficient. MS's IIS, I'd need to remote desktop to it, requiring me at least have a GUI based client, and have a RPD compatible client, connect to the server, waste all that bandwidth for all those not so shiny GUI, open MMC snap-in for IIS, change some config, save, sending messages to everyone that the web server is going down in a minute and will be up in no time. I don't know if RDP can be encrypted to the level of SSH, I don't really care - I live in a country where broadband internet access costs an arm and a leg (and probably some of your babies too). So bandwidth efficiency is by far Apache's advantage, just by enabling ".conf" file...

zzz2496

Sounds like you come from an *IX environment which is fine, however if you are really working with IIS you can do the same, you can remote to the machine via, Telnet, SSH, a Command Prompt, network share etc. etc. and do the same thing. As well if Apache is running on a Windows Box.

I think the OP was talking about software in general; I was just covering why MS uses the registry instead of configuration files. Either way you can edit remotely as needed without the GUI if you wish.

You can edit IIS's config file over console session? Wow, I don't know that... I'll keep a note on it, thanks

zzz2496

 

[WindowsStar]

zzz2496, you are most welcome.

 

[eddieG]

1) Specificity (thanks CommonTater! I was also looking for this one in the list)
2) Simplicity
3) Efficiency

In my opinion a software should do what it claims to do, and not be bloated with hundreds of other things just to have a long feature list.