http://blogs.msdn.com/jmstall/archive/2007/09/05/feature-parity-vs-scenario-parity.aspxIt can be easy to miss the forest through the trees. Sometimes there are emergent properties from the individual feature items, which in turn provide some new "implicit" feature to the end-user. Such features can lead to very useful end-user scenarios,en-USCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://blogs.msdn.com/jmstall/archive/2007/09/05/feature-parity-vs-scenario-parity.aspx#4796776Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:48:12 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4796776David M<p>This is an interesting point. &nbsp;You've focused in your examples on APIs quite a bit, but it's just as true for more user-visible features.</p> <p>Something I'll be doing over the next couple of months is rewriting a fairly significant feature in our app, due to some design and implementation flaws, and this sort of thing is what I've been worrying about. &nbsp;I'm trying very hard to make sure it still lets users do everything they could with the old one. &nbsp;So this is a timely post for me, thanks for writing it!</p>http://blogs.msdn.com/jmstall/archive/2007/09/05/feature-parity-vs-scenario-parity.aspx#4854907Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:08:13 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4854907jmstall<p>David - glad you found it useful! I find it's impossible to have a comprehensive list of how people are actually using something. That's where Betas + dogfooding can be very useful.</p>