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 lexicons are also gatekeepers. As Russell Brand put it so succinctly on the Comedian's Comedian podcast:

Only things that there are words for are being said. A challenge ... is to make up different words if you want to say different and unusual things.

To improve collaboration, then, find a common vocabulary which covers all the concepts you need.

Sounds simple, but giving serious thought to specific terminology choices is also important. Carefully selected names and naming conventions can make understanding a problem space straightforward. Not taking care can have the opposite effect, particularly for newcomers.

However, even if you've achieved a comprehensive vocabulary that is clear, logical, and known to everyone who needs to know it, don't relax. Why? Because language does not stand still.

Definitions change over time because the words that make them up change in meaning over time. But those definitions are definitions of words which are used in definitions of other words, so the meaning of them changes too.

Words do not exist in isolation. They are part of a wider system, a wide and complex system, one in which words and the things they describe both change in more or less predictable ways over time. They also interact with and are altered by other parallel systems. Tough, but c'est la vie.

How does this knowledge help me as a tester?

When I joined my current company I talked to lots of people and read a lot of wiki pages. What I noticed, as I tried to build a set of coherent models, was the variability in the descriptions of the same software components, projects, or organisational structures. The axes that these varied along include:

time: how it was, how it is, or how it's going to be
perspective: actual, perceived, or desired
proximity: in our team, in our group, or in the whole company

To give just one tiny example: my team's component imports another team's code as a library. Variable and object names are very inconsistent between them despite many concepts overlapping significantly. It probably was closer early on but has diverged over time. Needless to say, this does not help us to collaborate.

Day to day, I try to stay alert to the fact I can't rely on the words meaning what I think they mean, or should mean. I will deliberately ask for clarification, I will summarise back to check my understanding, and I will choose a subset of my lexicon carefully to suit the people I am conversing with.

I also consciously date stamp and contextualise much of what I write down so there is at least a chance that the next reader along can know that Project X isn't some skunkworks secret from the past, just an earlier iteration of what they already know as Project Y.

If "contextualise" sounds like extra time and effort then you're right, it is. But I aim for it to be as little as writing a one-line Background section at the top of a page with links to material that already exists, or using tag, labels, or whatever metadata options are available to me in the system I'm working on.

I am also cautious about using certain kinds of words, particularly in bug reports. Compare these two sets of reproduction steps:

* Create one thingy
* Increase the X-parameter
* Create another thingy
* Move the thingy with the increased X into the panel for the first thingy

* Create a thingy (T1)
* Increase T1's X-parameter
* Create a thingy (T2)
* Move T2 into T1's panel

Which would you rather (a) write and (b) follow?

It can be tempting to go on a mission to squash all ambiguity, but sometimes a little greyness can encourage collaboration and move initiatives forward, so there's a judgement call to be made. My approach is to follow Postel's Law and strive to be strict in what I produce but accommodating to what I receive.

Finally, at CEWT a couple of years ago I attempted to argue that testers often don't know what they're doing, and that's fine. To illustrate my point, I asked the other workshop participants to give definitions of quality, bug, and testing. It probably won't surprise you to learn that they orbited around common cores but also differed significantly. We still managed to spend a day talking about those topics to one another!

Image: https://flic.kr/p/6MhvPf

Comments

Meet Me Halfway?

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 , Mastodon , 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-- "Stop answering my questions with questions." Sure, I can do that. In return, please stop asking me questions so open to interpretation that any answ...

Can Code, Can't Code, Is Useful

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 , Mastodon , 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-- "If testers can’t code, they’re of no use to us" My first reaction is to wonder what you expect from your testers. I am immediately interested ...

The Best Programmer Dan Knows

I was pairing with my friend Vernon at work last week, on a tool I've been developing. He was smiling broadly as I talked him through what I'd done because we've been here before. The tool facilitates a task that's time-consuming, inefficient, error-prone, tiresome, and important to get right. Vern knows that those kinds of factors trigger me to change or build something, and that's why he was struggling not to laugh out loud. He held himself together and asked a bunch of sensible questions about the need, the desired outcome, and the approach I'd taken. Then he mentioned a talk by Daniel Terhorst-North, called The Best Programmer I Know, and said that much of it paralleled what he sees me doing. It was my turn to laugh then, because I am not a good programmer, and I thought he knew that already. What I do accept, though, is that I am focussed on the value that programs can give, and getting some of that value as early as possible. He sent me a link to the ta...

Beginning Sketchnoting

In September 2017 I attended Ian Johnson 's visual note-taking workshop at DDD East Anglia . For the rest of the day I made sketchnotes, including during Karo Stoltzenburg 's talk on exploratory testing for developers (sketch below), and since then I've been doing it on a regular basis. Karo recently asked whether I'd do a Team Eating (the Linguamatics brown bag lunch thing) on sketchnoting. I did, and this post captures some of what I said. Beginning sketchnoting, then. There's two sides to that: I still regard myself as a beginner at it, and today I'll give you some encouragement and some tips based on my experience, to begin sketchnoting for yourselves. I spend an enormous amount of time in situations where I find it helpful to take notes: testing, talking to colleagues about a problem, reading, 1-1 meetings, project meetings, workshops, conferences, and, and, and, and I could go on. I've long been interested in the approaches I've evol...

Not Strictly for the Birds

One of my chores takes me outside early in the morning and, if I time it right, I get to hear a charming chorus of birdsong from the trees in the gardens down our road, a relaxing layered soundscape of tuneful calls, chatter, and chirrupping. Interestingly, although I can tell from the number and variety of trills that there must be a large number of birds around, they are tricky to spot. I have found that by staring loosely at something, such as the silhouette of a tree's crown against the slowly brightening sky, I see more birds out of the corner of my eye than if I scan to look for them. The reason seems to be that my peripheral vision picks up movement against the wider background that direct inspection can miss. An optometrist I am not, but I do find myself staring at data a great deal, seeking relationships, patterns, or gaps. I idly wondered whether, if I filled my visual field with data, I might be able to exploit my peripheral vision in that quest. I have a wide monito...

ChatGPTesters

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 , Mastodon , 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-- "Why don’t we replace the testers with AI?" We have a good relationship so I feel safe telling you that my instinctive reaction, as a member of the T...

Vanilla Flavour Testing

I have been pairing with a new developer colleague recently. In our last session he asked me "is this normal testing?" saying that he'd never seen anything like it anywhere else that he'd worked. We finished the task we were on and then chatted about his question for a few minutes. This is a short summary of what I said. I would describe myself as context-driven . I don't take the same approach to testing every time, except in a meta way. I try to understand the important questions, who they are important to, and what the constraints on the work are. With that knowledge I look for productive, pragmatic, ways to explore whatever we're looking at to uncover valuable information or find a way to move on. I write test notes as I work in a format that I have found to be useful to me, colleagues, and stakeholders. For me, the notes should clearly state the mission and give a tl;dr summary of the findings and I like them to be public while I'm working not just w...

Build Quality

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 , Mastodon , 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-- "When the build is green, the product is of sufficient quality to release" An interesting take, and one I wouldn't agree with in gener...

Postman Curlections

My team has been building a new service over the last few months. Until recently all the data it needs has been ingested at startup and our focus has been on the logic that processes the data, architecture, and infrastructure. This week we introduced a couple of new endpoints that enable the creation (through an HTTP POST) and update (PUT) of the fundamental data type (we call it a definition ) that the service operates on. I picked up the task of smoke testing the first implementations. I started out by asking the system under test to show me what it can do by using Postman to submit requests and inspecting the results. It was the kinds of things you'd imagine, including: submit some definitions (of various structure, size, intent, name, identifiers, etc) resubmit the same definitions (identical, sharing keys, with variations, etc) retrieve the submitted definitions (using whatever endpoints exist to show some view of them) compare definitions I submitted fro...

Express, Listen, and Field

Last weekend I participated in the LLandegfan Exploratory Workshop on Testing (LLEWT) 2024, a peer conference in a small parish hall on Anglesey, north Wales. The topic was communication and I shared my sketchnotes and a mind map from the day a few days ago. This post summarises my experience report. Express, Listen, and Field Just about the most hands-on, practical, and valuable training I have ever done was on assertiveness with a local Cambridge coach, Laura Dain . In it she introduced Express, Listen, and Field (ELF), distilled from her experience across many years in the women’s movement, business, and academia. ELF: say your key message clearly and calmly, actively listen to the response, and then focus only on what is relevant to your needs. I blogged a little about it back in 2017 and I've been using it ever since. Assertiveness In a previous role, I was the manager of a test team and organised training for the whole ...

Hiccupps

Search This Blog