Think of a technical document that you remember as being exceptionally useful. What made it so?
Think of a technical document that you remember as being dreadful. What made it so?
List several architectural aspects of a system you're familiar with, and state why they are. List several aspects that are not architectural, and state why they are not. List several aspects that are "on the cusp," and make a compelling argument for putting each into "architectural" or "nonarchitectural" categories.
If you visit Seoul, Korea, you might see the following sign presiding over one of the busy downtown thoroughfares: What does it mean? Is the information this sign conveys structural, behavioral, or both? What are the elements in this system? Are they more like modules or like components? What qualities about the notation make this sign understandable or not understandable? Does the sign convey a dynamic architecture, or dynamic behavior within a static architecture? Who are the stakeholders for this sign? What quality attributes is it attempting to achieve? How would you validate it, to assure yourself that it was satisfying its requirements?
List the stakeholders for a software architecture. How do project managers, chief technical officers, chief information officers, analysts, customers, and end users fit into your list?
How much of a project's budget would you devote to software architecture documentation? Why? How would you measure the cost and the benefit?