i found a good use case template online, that seems to match fairly closely to what we have already been doing which is good! however i do agree with Jim's point about organizing it better and having better formatting. so could we agree that feature names get 3 #s, use cases within get 5 #s, use case ids are determined by their use case names just like Jim did, and steps/exceptions are numbered and listed. Sound ok? Any other inconsistencies i missed?
i found a good use case template online, that seems to match fairly closely to what we have already been doing which is good! however i do agree with Jim's point about organizing it better and having better formatting. so could we agree that feature names get 3 #s, use cases within get 5 #s, use case ids are determined by their use case names just like Jim did, and steps/exceptions are numbered and listed. Sound ok? Any other inconsistencies i missed?