I wanted to complain that the paper is overly-specific yet somehow lossy in its taxonomy and that its wording is just sloppy . . . but it's Kaner. At least he

I wanted to complain that the paper is overly-specific yet somehow lossy in its taxonomy and that its wording is just sloppy . . . but it's Kaner. At least he tries(/tried?) to elevate the discussion, I guess.