How do you measure the "quality" of sofware?

[MaxIBoy]

I take the mean time between annoyances. If that number is below 20 minutes, the software sucks. If that number is above 1 and a half hours, the software is good. If that number is more than a full day, the software is great.

By that system, I use a LOT of really, really great software!




How do you measure the quality of software?

[Kernel Sanders]

The average user measures the quality of software by the following, in order:

1) Stability
2) Appearance
3) Appearance
4) Appearance
5) Ease of use
6) Features
7) Speed

[Polygon]

does it work?
does it work WELL?
is it confusing to learn how to use?
does it look good?

[MickS]

I judge software this way.
(1) Ease of use/understanding how to.
(2) How well it does what it sets out to do
(3) Stability
(4) Looks

That's a bit rough because it depends a lot on what the application is, for example if I am converting video file formats then it doesn't matter what it looks like but if I am watching a video the looks become more important.
It's a more difficult question than it first appears.

Mick

[Sealbhach]

This is pretty much how I think about it:


Does it crash much? If no, continue using.

Does it do what I want it to do? If yes, continue using.

Is it easy to use? If yes continue using, if no look for an alternative.

Does it look nice? If no, look for an alternative.


.

[jpmelos]

Quality evaluation from the point of view of the users:


1. Does it work? If yes proceed, else jump to 5.

2. Does it work well? If yes proceed, else jump to 5.

3. Is it easy to use? (Appearance and user interface fits here.) If yes proceed, else jump to 5.

4. Is it reliable in my platform? (Runs smooth, doesn't overload my CPU, etc.) If yes you may use it and stop reading this, else proceed.

5. If you followed the algorithm and is yet reading this, look for an alternative.

[albinootje]

I take the mean time between annoyances. If that number is below 20 minutes, the software sucks. If that number is above 1 and a half hours, the software is good. If that number is more than a full day, the software is great.

Thinking about software that I use on servers :

0) Security
1) Flexibility
2) Functionality (features)
3) Stability
4) Active development with responsive and preferably friendly maintainers
and/or programmers

They all come very close to each other.

[Northsider]

Can the software do what I need it to do in a clear and intuitive manner? Yes? Then it's a "high quality" software.

[InfinityCircuit]

Linus Torvalds:

It’s a thing I call “taste”.

I tend to judge the people I work with not by how proficient they are: some people can churn out a _lot_ of code, but more by how they react to other peoples code, and then obviously by what their own code _looks_ like, and what approaches they chose. That tells me whether they have “good taste” or not, and the thing is, a person without “good taste” often is not very good at judging other peoples code, but his own code often ends up not being wonderfully good.

But hey, it’s not the only thing. One thing that is very useful, especially in an open source project, is simply the ability to communicate well what you want to do, and how you are going to do it. The ability to explain to others _why_ you do something a certain way is very important, and not everybody has that ability.

That said, in the end there are also the people who just churn out good code. They may not be good at explaining it, and they may not even have great taste, but the code works well. Sometimes you need another person (one that _does_ have that hard-to-define “taste”) to maybe massage the code into a form where it’s useful in the bigger picture, but just the ability to write clear code for difficult problems is obviously a fairly fundamnetal part of any programmer.

http://www.stifflog.com/2006/10/16/stiff-asks-great-programmers-answer/

[jyaan]

I go by how well it works (eg. how much I can get done with it) and how much it annoys me.

Some programs just give you that feeling, "Wow, this is great.." -- I suppose that could be a factor...

[Mason Whitaker]

1. Usability ( Does it do what I want done? )
2. Stability ( I don't want to click that many error messages )
3. Development ( I appreciate programmers who continue to work on their projects )
4. Appearance ( It doesn't have to be that visually appealing for me to like it, but I won't use a program that's using to many crappy colors )

[samjh]

In no particular order for end-users:


Ease of learning.
Ease of use.
Functionality
Reliability
Security


In no particular order for developers and publishers:


Meets functionality requirements.
Reduce the risk and frequency of errors to a minimum.
Documentation that is easy to read and understand.
Maintainable code.
Delivered on time.
Delivered within budget.

[Skripka]

Do I notice the software as I'm doing things? Or do I just get work done?

If I do-then something is wrong with it IMHO. Meaning either it is buggy & doesn't work, or doesn't have features, or has poor GUI so you cannot find things, or some combination of the above.


The best software, you don't notice.

[Tom--d]

In my eyes its:

1. Appearances
2. Stability
3. Appearances
4. Appearances
5. Features
6. Appearances

[vambo]

How do you measure the quality of software?

With a very long piece of string :P

[doas777]

I think it's 100% subjective. I say this because I spend a good bit of time at work cleaning crap software off users PCs.

The user must have thought it worthwhile, but I call it crap.

From my perspective, a lot of perfectly functioning software is horrible. increasingly one mans feature is another mans privacy nightmare. Trusted Computing and DRM are all about preventing me from controlling software running on my box. It may work correctly, but I'd really rather it didn't.

cheers!

[mobilediesel]

Do I notice the software as I'm doing things? Or do I just get work done?

If I do-then something is wrong with it IMHO. Meaning either it is buggy & doesn't work, or doesn't have features, or has poor GUI so you cannot find things, or some combination of the above.


The best software, you don't notice.

That's how I look at the quality of software or even any other kind of technology. Technology and software isn't supposed to be noticed. It's just supposed to get done what it was made to do. My new signature says it all.

[chucky chuckaluck]

if i like it, it's good. if i don't like it, it sucks. if it's slow, i don't like it.

[tom66]

If two products are very close in quality and work the same, just stick with the first choice unless there's some demanding factor to change (e.g. price, licensing, future compatibility, etc.) because changing a program (or product) is just asking for problems. In other words, if something works for you, don't change it. That's what I would call quality software, which needs no comparison because it just gets the job done how and when you need it.

[handy]

User satisfaction.

[MikeTheC]

@OP - How do I measure quality?

Why, with my trusty HP Quality Meter, of course! What a silly question. Here, take a look. This is what happened when I was sampling Ubuntu 8.10 for quality levels...

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1739/qualitymeteranimco1.gif

[toupeiro]

Quality software should be / allow you to:

1) Maximize your total work output at the most Minimal learning curve to achieve that output.

2) fluid and intuitive. Keep as many bells and whistles out of sight as possible, but don't make them impossible to invoke for those few times you do need granularity in your task. Allow your GUI to work for you. Accept batch modifications, "select all/ apply all" options, imports and exports must always be within 2-3 clicks.

3) Not too flashy or in your face. Don't constantly remind me of who made it by putting your logo or company name in front of every single component or option. Your application name should make me curious enough to try it, then be blown away by how fast I was able to do what I needed to do and be done with your tool. I will remember what it did and tell my friends by how well it works. Name credibility almost always accompanies this.

... In my opinion anyway...

[Amazona aestiva]

Generally:

(1) Ease of use & understanding the gui
(2) How well it works
(3) Stability
(4) Appereance


If there was only one program for a certain purpose, I would like it to work properly and I wouldn't care if it wasn't have a nice gui:

(1) How well it does what it should
(2) Stability
(3) Understanding the gui OR the command line options
(4) Ease of use

[billgoldberg]

I take the mean time between annoyances. If that number is below 20 minutes, the software sucks. If that number is above 1 and a half hours, the software is good. If that number is more than a full day, the software is great.

By that system, I use a LOT of really, really great software!




How do you measure the quality of software?

Does it get the job done easily and in an accepted period?

If yes, the software is good.

If one of the two is correct, then it's so and so.

If neither, then it sucks.

[Prefix100]

Is it free, or worth the cost?
Does it do what it claims to do in the way it claims to do it?
Is it Stable?
Does it have a Linux version?

[fx78]

For me having decent feedback (logs for example) when something goes wrong is one of the most important factors (especially in server software).
It's also one of the things I dislike about windows, sometimes it feels like a black box... Something that doesn't work without giving any clues why, is frustrating as hell !!

[CrazyArcher]

For me, good software
1. Has the features I need and does stuff like it's supposed to do
2. Doesn't crash
3. Works quickly enough and doesn't take tons of memory (within plausible limits of course - an IM client and a video editor are different beasts)
4. Has good UI
5. Provides decent feedback in case I do stuff wrong
6. Doesn't annoy the hell outta me with logos, needless suggestions and other crap

[chucky chuckaluck]

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1739/qualitymeteranimco1.gif

believe it, or not, that could end up wallpaper for at least ten minutes.

[hessiess]

Simplicity: removal of features that aren't strictly nesoserry into modules or separate independent programs.

efficiency: is it fast to use, if the program has bad keybord shortcuts the answer to this is probably no

Clenlyness of interface: waste the absolute minimum amount of space with interface, to give the maximum amount of space for displaying whatever your editing.

have a 'brick wall' learning curve: because programs that are hard to learn are normally the most efficient, Blender and Vi for instance.

Be non standard and inivertave: Becouse programs that follow the same old formula are boring to use and often inefficient and or produce bad results. for example, LaTeX documents almost always look nicer than word processor documents.

[jpmelos]

In no particular order for developers and publishers:


Meets functionality requirements.
Reduce the risk and frequency of errors to a minimum.
Documentation that is easy to read and understand.
Maintainable code.
Delivered on time.
Delivered within budget.


I completely agree with you about the point of view of the developer team.


That's how I look at the quality of software or even any other kind of technology. Technology and software isn't supposed to be noticed. It's just supposed to get done what it was made to do. My new signature says it all.

His signature says:


When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.

I completely agree. Couldn't be more true.