From “Gilb’s Mythodology Column: User Stories: A Skeptical View by Tom and Kai Gilb”, an article from the AgileRecord.
Full PDF download here: http://www.gilb.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=461
Myth 1: User stories and the conversations provoked by them comprise verbal communication, which is clearer than written communication.
A good written specification of any requirement type should be so clear and comprehensive that it is not necessary, as it is assumed with user stories, to have an oral conversation to clarify it.
Q: Are we just bad in writing good specifications, so that we use user stories instead?
Q: Who is writing the specification? How can it be so clear that there is no oral conversation needed?
Regarding the sample specification about “Intuitiveness”:
The user story “We want the most intuitive system possible” is not a good written user story.
I would change the user story
-> “We want the most intuitive system possible”
-> As a “Product Marketing, end user, trainer” I want to correctly complete my [Tasks] in under 15 seconds
If there are any questions about this spec, then the answer needs to be written down in the spec, for reference by all future users of the specification. Not just ‘discussed’ orally, and forgotten in practice.
The discussion that we have leads to more information about the requirement and more conclusions. The team updates the story with this information and the story gets enrichened.
This technique is called Backlog Grooming and is an important practice (Described in the Scrum Guide)