{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017357762777242044, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.407407407407407, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Transparency versus security: early analysis of antagonistic requirements

Information systems designers have been increasingly convinced about the importance of dealing with quality issues at early stages of development. Over the landscape of quality issues, several proposals have been published as to help with respect to security. On the other hand, designers do also need to care about other quality issues; for instance, transparency. Transparency is the quality of having open information to the public. At first, the general intuition is that security and transparency conflict, but how should designers deal with these antagonistic issues? Departing from the use of the Non-Functional Requirements Framework we propose a process, based on Personal Construct Theory, to perform early analysis of antagonistic design issues. Having early analysis of antagonistic quality issues makes it possible for informed decision to be taken early on during IS design. We use the election domain to illustrate the application of our proposal.