Skip to main content

Testing in the Abstract, Again


It reminded me once more of Harnessed Tester asking whether he could switch his testing off.  I mean, I never intended to start testing when I began reviewing those abstracts. All I wanted to do was think about a strategy for reviewing conference submissions, implement it, and reflect on it. That's all. Honestly. But here I was, testing. Again.

I'd been asked to review submissions for a conference. On the one hand it was a tiny bit flattering to be asked, I was certainly interested to see what goes on behind the scenes, and I thought I might learn something about submitting proposals of my own in future.

On the other hand, I'm not naive enough to think that I was being asked because of who I am rather than because they needed eyeballs, a large number of reviews were being asked for, and the deadline was just four days away. But I decided to go for it, on the basis that it was a novel experience for me.

Limited time, a new task, little context: not unusual parameters for a project. I carved out a bit of time for preliminary thoughts on the way I wanted to begin to attack the problem, and asked things like what factors could I predict that I might be concerned about, how might I prepare for that, and how might I mitigate any risks that I identified?

I like to reflect on how I worked and how I felt about it, so when I began reviewing I made notes as I went. It wasn't long before I realised that I was noting down observations not just about myself but about the conference review process I was working in, the usability of the reviewing application, and the compromises I was making because of those things.

Testing, you see. Again.

Let's start where I started. What were some of the potential problems I could foresee with reviewing?

  • Calibration of my scoring: Both with myself and with other reviewers. I hoped that the provided guidelines would help me to score consistently (enough for the organisers' needs) with other reviewers, and I hoped I could be consistent with myself across reviews.
  • Not enough time: I hadn't been given any guidance on the amount of time to spend reviewing each submission and didn't have much intuition about it. To get through the set I'd been allocated would take several hours at 5 minutes each, plus any prep time and the time to record my views. I wanted to give all candidates a fair crack of the whip.
  • Too personal a view: I think of myself as a bit of a generalist but, like us all, I've got my preferences. For example, I really enjoy the mental exercise that theoretical talks offer. The meta-er the better-er! I've also been around for a while and done, seen, and read a lot of stuff. I might easily be jaded, or too easily assume that some topic that I'm familiar with and totally over already is not interesting to others.

The conference organisers supplied very readable review guidelines. They stipulated that each review was to include numerical scores in several dimensions (including whether I'd want to see the talk myself, how well it fitted the theme etc) and some free text comments to include both reaction and reflection. I found it helpful that there were examples of factors that would motivate both high and low scores.

My first impressions of the web application for managing reviews were less warm. It was a single page with submissions identified only by numbers. Clicking through showed the proposal text and some other data, space for my review and a "submit review" button. There was no indication that I could submit and then edit a review if I wanted to. This bothered me with respect to being self-consistent across the whole set.

When viewing a submission I was unable to see fields for the submitter's name or organisation. I think this is right, and fair.  However, I found it was often trivial to identify the submitter, or that their name was just in plain sight in some other field. Some submissions that I reviewed had additional material attached which gave contact details, and a field which asked for evidence of speaking experience frequently contained links to YouTube or blogs.

As the review guidelines made no mention of assessing speaker suitability or perceived ability, much of the potential for conflict could have been removed by showing reviewers only the title and text of the abstracts.

To give myself a chance to tune my reviewing radar, I decided to pre-review a few proposals outside of the web application. I might have done it in the application if I'd been sure I could go back and edit.  I randomly chose 15% of the submissions from my list in the hope of seeing something of the range of proposals that I might encounter, be more confident that I'd review fairly and consistently across the whole set, and get an idea of how much time I might need to spend in total.

It was a nice idea, but it didn't work on this occasion because I found that I was largely unimpressed by all of them. What to do? Worry that my standards were too high? Worry that my tastes were too esoteric? Worry that I wasn't the target audience for this conference? All possible, but instead I decided that I'd accept that I was consistent on this set, and use it as my baseline, a yardstick for what was to come in terms of reviewing standards and also time per review.

Then I started at the top of the list of submissions and began reviewing. After clicking "submit" on the first review, I resolved my question about whether editing was possible: it was. Would have been nice to have known, but ...

It would also have been nice if the text of the submissions hadn't been stripped of formatting so that bullet lists and paragraphs ran into each other in a blob of messiness. Ironically, having found that I could edit my reviews, I also found that, when I did, the app put HTML markup in the text box along with my text which made it harder for me! Hopefully this makes it easier for the reviewers of reviews to read.

As I found myself flicking back and forth frequently between the review guidelines and the scoring panels, I thought how nice it would be to have the guidance there in the page for me, in the place I need it. Likewise, I was surprised to be asked to judge workshops given that the review guidelines were specifically for presentations. As the same scoring options were presented, I used the same criteria.

Although I liked the guidelines a lot, and did my best to review according to them, they still left room for subjectivity. I don't think there's much scope for avoiding that so I decided that I was prepared to trust my own preferences, and that they were what the organisers wanted, given that they had asked me.

I felt a surprisingly strong sense of relief when I found a few proposals that just stood head and shoulders above everything else I had read: something with depth, something that I could truthfully say that I would want to go and see on the basis of the short description only. It gave me some confidence that I hadn't been too harsh with my earlier low grades. Some confidence ...

I said at the top that my initial mission here was to review for myself how I'd gone about reviewing and I noted three particular concerns. How do I feel I did against them?

  • Calibration of scoring:  I would have liked to have been able to use the app to compare the set of grades that I had given but there was no obvious way to achieve that. I was discouraged from deeper comparison across reviews because of the interface: having to remember which number represented which abstract in order to click through and see my grading was tiresome. 
  • Not enough time: my preliminary reviews helped to give me reassurance that I could do a fair job in the time I had available. 
  • Too personal a view: I came to think that it's on the organisers to choose the reviewers they think will represent the audience they want to attract in whatever ways are important to them, in the context of the review guidelines.

But, as we've seen, I ended up thinking about more besides. You'll have noticed too, I guess, that there's no mention of my asking any questions of the organisers. In a real world testing task I would have asked the stakeholders for assistance in giving them what they wanted, for clarification. In this particular world, however, with a very tight deadline and the reviews being done over a weekend I didn't have that luxury.

So this is an experience report, based on no prior experience of this kind of process. I wrote it some time ago, and since then I've reviewed conference proposals another couple of times. The reflections here helped me in the task, and the writing helped that reflection.

I've reflected again on whether I want to turn testing off, as Harnessed Tester suggested. And, again, I don't think that I do. I enjoy the feeling of questioning what I'm doing, and why I'm doing it, and why it matters. I also like the practice of keeping that stuff in check while accomplishing my mission, and working out what it's appropriate to report, when, and to who. If I'm honest, I actually smile when I find myself testing, again.
Image: https://flic.kr/p/gdc5W4

I haven't named the conference I'm talking about here because it isn't intended as any particular comment on them.  I shared my longer thoughts, including specific details not included here, with the organisers some time before I published this post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ideal Test Plan

A colleague pinged me the other day, asking about an "ideal test plan" and wondering whether I could suggest something. Not without a bit more information, I said. OK, they said. Who needs the plan, for what purpose? I asked. Their response: it's for internal use, to improve documentation, and provide a standard structure. We work in a medical context and have strict compliance requirements, so I wondered aloud whether the plan is needed for audit, or to show to customers? It's not, they replied, it's just for the team. Smiling now, I stopped asking questions and delivered the good news that I had what they were looking for. Yes? they asked, in anticipation. Naturally I paused for dramatic effect and to enhance the appearance of deep wisdom, before saying: the ideal plan is one that works for you. Which is great and all that, but not heavy on practical advice. --00-- I am currently running a project at the Association for Software Testing and there is a plan for

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

69.3%, OK?

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "What percentage of our test cases are automated?" There's a lot wrapped up in that question, particularly when it's a metric for monitoring the state of testing. It's not the first time I've been asked either. In my

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Testing is Knowledge Work

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Fail Here or Fail There

The First Law of Systems-Survival, according to John Gall, is this: A SYSTEM THAT IGNORES FEEDBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF TERMINAL INSTABILITY Laws are all-caps in Systemantics . Not just laws, but also theorems, axioms, and corollaries. There are many of them so here's another (location 2393-2394): JUST CALLING IT “FEEDBACK” DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY FED BACK There was a point when I realised, as the capitalised aphorisms rolled by, that I was sinking into the warm and sweetly-scented comforting foamy bathwater of confirmatory bias. Seen, seen, seen! Tick, tick, tick! I took the opportunity to let myself know that I'd been caught in the act, and that I needed to get out of the tub and start to challenge the content.  Intervening at that moment was congruent: I was in a context where I would accept it and prepared to change because of it. Of course, I enjoyed the deep irony of nodding along with Gall when he talked about

Testing and Words

  The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years .   This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts.  --00-- In The Complete Plain Words , Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that: What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas. It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged. We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons . The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse. But lexic

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a