The biggest problem with UML is that it focuses on codifying relationships and attributes, rather than on making diagrams that are easy to understand at a glance. If I have to train people to read and decode my diagrams, they lose most of their value. This "hidden legend" separates me from my audience and furthers the stereotype of the Architect living in his own little world.
Instead of trying to pack a ton of information into a single diagram, I prefer to have multiple simple diagrams. Present the big picture in one diagram, then zoom in on a specific area or relationship to provide more depth in another diagram.
I do think that being trained on diagramming is worth it, and having a standard can make for better quality training, but assuming that all engineers will have been trained is folly.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
The biggest problem with UML is that it focuses on codifying relationships and attributes, rather than on making diagrams that are easy to understand at a glance. If I have to train people to read and decode my diagrams, they lose most of their value. This "hidden legend" separates me from my audience and furthers the stereotype of the Architect living in his own little world.
Instead of trying to pack a ton of information into a single diagram, I prefer to have multiple simple diagrams. Present the big picture in one diagram, then zoom in on a specific area or relationship to provide more depth in another diagram.
I do think that being trained on diagramming is worth it, and having a standard can make for better quality training, but assuming that all engineers will have been trained is folly.